Oh, right. And your numbers are 4-5x better than mine, (presumably because linux's filesystem is faster than mac os x's).
Robby On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 11:19 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <sa...@cs.indiana.edu>wrote: > I think you mean `racket/init` in the second version, right? > > For me, I get (slightly edited for clarity): > > $ echo '(exit)' | time racket -vl racket/base -e '(read-eval-print-loop)' > Welcome to Racket v6.0.0.2. > > > 0.02user 0.01system 0:00.03elapsed > > vs > > $ echo '(exit)' | time racket -vl racket/init -e '(read-eval-print-loop)' > Welcome to Racket v6.0.0.2. > > > 0.14user 0.04system 0:00.18elapsed > > Sam > > > On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 12:12 PM, Robby Findler > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > > On Tue, Feb 11, 2014 at 9:11 AM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> > wrote: > >> > >> > >> The Racket VM startup time is longer than it used to be, and I no longer > >> use it often as a quick command-line calculator. (If filesystem and > >> libraries aren't in Linux caches, it's almost 4 seconds before REPL > prompt > >> on my workstation.) That might not have to be a problem for an > >> onion-router, however, even if you're starting up lots of processes > (since > >> you might be able to start worker processes before they're needed). > >> > > > > No on topic, I know, but this is probably because of a different amount > of > > code loaded (I'm not sure which version we're comparing against, tho). > > > > You could probably try this if you wish to return those days: > > > > racket -vl racket/base -e '(read-eval-print-loop)' > > > > For me that starts up about 4x faster (.1 second vs .4 seconds, but on a > > machine that has warm caches) than this: > > > > racket -vl racket/base -e '(read-eval-print-loop)' > > > > which is roughly an explicated version of the no-command-line arguments > > "racket". > > > > Robby > > > > ____________________ > > Racket Users list: > > http://lists.racket-lang.org/users > > >
____________________ Racket Users list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
