sorry for my late answer but i needed to test again (and modify code a bit)
a few precision:
-the code is perheaps hard to // : recursive algo versus imperative one
-only a portion of code is //( i // the unification of minterms because it
was really long to compute,but perheaps there are other bot
Hi!
First of all, Guile is (currently) slower than racket or many things. The
interpreter should not be slower than running from the command line.
One thing you could do is modularize the code. Currently there will be a
function call overhead, since guile cannot know if a function has been rep
Hi!
I think the only way to use multiple cores in Racket is to use "places" and that
means starting new Racket VMs.
Lambdas are not easily serialized with all their environment, so it is difficult
to actually "send a lambda" to another "place" (Racket VM) dynamically. The only
way I found wa
Damien Mattei writes:
> when comparing the (almost) same code running on Guile and Racket i find
> big speed difference:
Schemes differ a lot in speed of different tasks, but Racket is one of
the fastest ones. Factor 2 difference sounds plausible. For a
comparison, see the r7rs benchmarks:
http
at some point, threads block or even crash but the sequential run is slow
too compared to Racket one.
On Sun, Nov 6, 2022 at 11:23 PM Hans Åberg wrote:
>
> > On 6 Nov 2022, at 17:01, Damien Mattei wrote:
> >
> > So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket?
>
> How is thread per
> On 6 Nov 2022, at 17:01, Damien Mattei wrote:
>
> So now the question is why is Guile slow compared to Racket?
How is thread performance? —The Boehm GC puts locks around every memory
allocation, which is slow if heavy in use.
