Oh. That does seem troubling then. On Monday, September 11, 2017 at 6:45:45 PM UTC-4, Jon Zeppieri wrote: > > > > > On Sep 11, 2017, at 6:39 PM, [email protected] <javascript:> > wrote: > > > > As far as I'm aware, futures usually shouldn't improve performance > outside of networking or hardware-latency type situations. The main goal of > futures is just time-sharing, not improving performance. It doesn't > genuinely do things in parallel, it just interleaves the execution of > several things at once. > > This isn't true. Futures are for parallelism; they just happen to be > defeated by many, many operations. More to the point, they're not for > interleaving work. Racket's threads are for that.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
