First, there's no longer a difference because yjqww6 just had a PR merged that improves the Racket performance.
The performance difference that was there was mostly because the Chez code was run with `--optimize-level 3` which turns off safety. If that was changed to `--optimize-level 2` the timing became much slower. Sam On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:39 AM philngu...@gmail.com <philnguyen0...@gmail.com> wrote: > > There’s this benchmark on BF interpreter where the Racket and Chez Scheme > implementations are very similar, but Chez Scheme is much faster than Racket > 8.0 at interpreting bench.b (3s vs 8s) and mandel.b (40s vs 136s). > > There’s the “Racket (Syntax Object)” variant that directly parses BF’s syntax > into Racket syntax object, which is faster (3.7s for bench, 82s for mandel), > but still significantly behind Chez Scheme’s naive interpreter. > > Profiling doesn’t give very illuminating results, saying most of the cost is > from interpreting BF’s loop instruction. > > Given that Racket is on Chez, could this benchmark reveal some low hanging > fruit for improving Racket’s performance? > > -- > 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. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/83b2819d-8295-4769-944d-fa0c155976dan%40googlegroups.com. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BY6e%3D7QXJZhOhF8-QbNc5HGu%2BUcrGzr1HhctSp1sA470g%40mail.gmail.com.
