Guys: - Gambit is awesome (and not just because the name is so cool)
- LLVM is a worthy project; one from academia even! - Benchmarks don't really say much about a language implementation. Lets not get too excited. Thanks, Robby On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 9:53 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote: > (CC list trimmed.) > > Greg Hendershott wrote at 11/06/2012 10:22 AM: > >> It sounds like this is morphing into benchmarking C compilers? >> > > > I think architecting a compiler to target the wildly popular GCC, as the > default configuration, is totally fair. > > Sounds like Apple pulled a switcheroo, broke some optimizations by > introducing bugs, didn't care, and consequently Gambit had to degrade > gracefully. > > Gambit needing a real (not fake) GCC to work best is different from vendor > saying that they only get their best benchmark performance in utterly > contrived machine configurations, running at a particular temperature during > a particular phase of the moon. > > BTW, I am a fan of Gambit. Gambit and Kawa were the main reason that I went > to such pains to write portable Scheme for so long. I always keep Gambit in > my back pocket, in case I ever run into a situation with really unusual > requirements (e.g., a gazillion threads). Similar with Kawa, in case I ever > really-really need to target the JVM. My strategy nowadays is to program > for Racket, but know how to port to another excellent Scheme descendant if I > ever have to. So far I haven't had to. > > Neil V. > > > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
