On Friday, November 20, 2015 at 5:40:32 AM UTC-5, Hendrik Boom wrote: > On Thu, Nov 19, 2015 at 02:01:02PM -0800, Brian Adkins wrote: > > The more I dig into Racket, the more I like it. It seems like a perfect fit > > for both my personality and the type of applications I am, and will be, > > writing. For the vast majority of what I need to do, it's a great fit. > > > > I do occasionally encounter a need for raw speed, so I'm looking for a > > complement to Racket for those few times when it's not fast enough. I > > chatted briefly about this on IRC the other day, but I thought I'd tap into > > the collective wisdom on the mailing list. > > > > I'm open to suggestions, but I've tentatively narrowed the list down to > > Rust and C. I programmed in C/C++ for about a decade, then Java for a > > decade, and most recently in Ruby for a decade, so it's been a while since > > I was an expert C hacker, and my recent Ruby experience has lessened my > > polyglotness :) > > Consider Gambit and OCaml. > > OCaml is statically typed, and its compiler uses the static typing in > its code generation. Although the stock OCaml interprets byte code, on > the x86 and AMD64 traditions the compiler will compile all the way to > efficient machine code. > > Gambit is another Scheme dialect (and thus similar somewhat to > Gambti). It normally compiles down to C, and permits you to specify > what C code is to be generated for specific user-declared functions. > THis might be the language team-up you want. > > -- hendrik
I've actually spent a fair amount of time with OCaml, and I like the language a lot (better than Haskell), but for *me* it's kind of in an awkward spot - on the one hand, it's not quite as fast as Rust/C (although for a functional language, it's really fast), and multi-core requires async (got tired of waiting for the multi-core promise of 4.03), and on the other hand, I find Racket much more enjoyable, productive and a better fit for the way I think. I would consider Gambit for a special purpose app that *needed* to compile down to C (maybe an embedded platform, robotics, etc. where Racket isn't available), but for my general application development, I'm sticking with Racket. I even have Racket running on my Raspberry Pi, and I think Linux is becoming more available for robotics, so I may be able to skip the whole "C" thing there as well. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
