Oddly ray@rpr:~$ time racket r.rkt
real 0m0.052s user 0m0.040s sys 0m0.012s ray@rpr:~$ time racket tr.rkt real 0m0.958s user 0m0.876s sys 0m0.080s On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@ccs.neu.edu>wrote: > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Eastlund <c...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: > > > > I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds for > > utest.rkt. So there's a fraction of a second extra startup time for > Typed > > Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent computation, so the > > difference depends on how much "real" work you do after startup. I don't > > know what causes that startup cost, but hopefully this kind of benchmark > > will be useful to the Typed Racket maintainers in closing the gap for > future > > versions. So, thanks for the example, Manfred! > > This is all true, and you can see it in simpler examples. The empty > modules: > > #lang typed/racket/base > > and > > #lang racket/base > > have the following timings: > > [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test.rkt > > real 0m0.592s > user 0m0.516s > sys 0m0.064s > [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test2.rkt > > real 0m0.065s > user 0m0.040s > sys 0m0.024s > > So you can see about 500 ms of extra overhead. Most of this time is in > loading and executing the runtime dependencies of Typed Racket, which > aren't used here, but which the implementation architecture of Typed > Racket makes it basically impossible to reduce. We've worked hard to > reduce this cost, but it's hard to go much further. > > Sam > ____________________ > Racket Users list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
