On Tue, Dec 11, 2012 at 11:43 AM, daniel rupis <danielrupistraliza...@yahoo.es> wrote: > Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <samth@...> writes: > >> >> While you're certainly right about DrRacket introducing noise in >> performance measurement, I don't think you need to generate an >> executable to eliminate that overhead. Simply running `racket` from >> the command line on a file in a module ought to be sufficient. >> >> Sam > > Hello Sam. > > I am using racket from the console, not using DrRacket. I just copy the > code > with control-c and paste with control-v then wait a seconds for the > definitions > to be loaded in memory and then run the test. > > I was going to use raco exce ... but it asks about a module (perhaps I should > read the section about using raco to generate a standalone executable).
To get the best performance from Racket, and in general for other benefits of Racket, code should be written in a module. Most straightforwardly, this means placing it in a file with `#lang racket/base` at the top, and then running that file with `racket filename.rkt`. > Anyway, my point was that I was expecting something more from typed racket. > Since typed racket use types (like declaring type in sbcl) I was expected > better > perfomance, that's all. The types you declared in SBCL and the types you declared in Typed Racket are very different, which results in the performance difference -- you used a bounded integer type in SBCL, and the arbitrary-size bignum type `Integer` in Typed Racket. As Pierpaolo shows, if you use fixnum operations in Racket, you get similar performance to SBCL. Sam ____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
