On Thu, 14 Sep 2017 05:53:59 -0600 Matthew Flatt <mfl...@cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> Yes, that's the goal. In the near term, the best-case scenario is that > existing Racket programs run on Chez Scheme and sometimes run faster > and/or in less memory. Wonderful! > The benefits within Racket's implementation are much greater in the > near term, since the new Racket layer is more maintainable and > adaptable, and that layer lives on a Chez Scheme base that is > certainly better than the part of the Racket that it replaces. You don't envision 'impedance mismatch' between the two? > Hopefully, this internal restructuring will allow more people to > contribute to Racket's implementation, leading to a range of > improvements for end users in the long run. Bright future for the Racket... > Only a few small things, and only recently. Humble, us usual. ;) Sincerely, Gour -- Abandoning all attachment to the results of his activities, ever satisfied and independent, he performs no fruitive action, although engaged in all kinds of undertakings. -- 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.
