Hi there,
I did a small test using typed racket.
This is an example from the documentation:
#lang typed/racket
;; test.rkt
(struct: pt ([x : Float] [y : Float]))
(: distance (pt pt -> Float))
(define (distance p1 p2)
(sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
(sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
(distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
This is the untyped version:
#lang racket
;; utest.rkt
(struct pt (x y))
(define (distance p1 p2)
(sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
(sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
(distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
Now running both:
time racket test.rkt
4.675467891024383
racket test.rkt 1.24s user 0.08s system 99% cpu 1.333 total
time racket utest.rkt
4.675467891024383
racket utest.rkt 0.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.248 total
It seems the typed version needs a lot of time for the type checking.
The time for time checking could be cut mostly by:
raco exe test.rkt
time ./test
4.675467891024383
./test 0.49s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.531 total
But still runtime is more than twice as long. I could get the
impression that typed racket is generally slower.
Question: Is there any conclusion to be drawn from this (like that
typed racket is slower than 'normal' racket)? Or is my test just a bad
test?
--
Manfred
____________________
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
