I appreciate the engineering diligence behind Alex's and Paulo's concerns.
Given the exemplary track record on Racket, I'm comfortable putting faith in Matthew's assessments (like a trusted engineering colleague, beyond the quantifiable like interim benchmarks), and there's at least some obvious goal alignment, and there's also been a good amount of transparency and conspicuous methodical work on the Chez work.
Thanks to Alex, I just realized that I don't recall the plans for performance at switchover time, and going from there. It'd be good to get an update/reminder on the current thinking, as people have to plan for long-term.
(My experience with a Racket production server farm is that we often didn't pick up each new Racket version immediately, and one time I backported a Racket enhancement across multiple versions when we had to be especially conservative, but we wanted to keep the option to move to use the latest version at any time, and we liked to know that we're on a good track for long-term.)
(BTW, some of us run Racket on ancient Intel Core 2 and older smartphone ARM, plus have Racket on a beefy new dedicated real-metal compute server, and we use "https://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/install-racket-versioned.sh";... so we will know if anyone tries any funny-stuff! :)
-- 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 racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
