So you would like to be able to do things like rename an identifier,
change "(if X Y)" to "(and X Y)", change "(if (not X) Y Z)" to "(if X Z
Y)", etc.?
If so, I would probably start by letting user specify transformation
rules like for "syntax-case" or "syntax-parse", do "read-syntax", do
som
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:35:30 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> Do you have a sense of why Racket performs poorly on the `paraffins`
>> benchmark?
>
> I wouldn't go so far as "poor" for that result,
I only ventured that characterization beca
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:48 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I think it is difficult to see that those integers do not escape
> fixnum range. :)
In particular, we can learn from the Online Encyclopedia of Integer
Sequences that they escape Racket's fixnum range on a 32 bit machine
like the one I'm typi
At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:35:30 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Do you have a sense of why Racket performs poorly on the `paraffins`
> benchmark?
I wouldn't go so far as "poor" for that result, but, anyway... I think
that benchmark turns out to measure mostly allocation. Racket in 32-bit
mode, wh
I think it is difficult to see that those integers do not escape
fixnum range. :)
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 7:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Hmph. I would expect TR to perform as fast as 'unsafe'.
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
>> 2668 msecs when I declare `cycle-leng
I tried using the type `(Fixnum -> Fixnum)', but there's a
multiplication in the function.
At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:42:48 -0500, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Hmph. I would expect TR to perform as fast as 'unsafe'.
>
>
> On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>
> > 2668 msecs when I dec
Hmph. I would expect TR to perform as fast as 'unsafe'.
On Nov 4, 2012, at 7:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> 2668 msecs when I declare `cycle-length' as `(Integer -> Integer)' and
> change `(even? n)' to `else', or 2809 msecs if I add `[else 0]' instead
> of changing `(even? n)'.
>
> At Sun, 4 N
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:38:25 -0800 (PST), Hugh Aguilar wrote:
>> Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or
>> any other Scheme, for speed?
>
> As it happens, as a sanity check on various changes that I've made
> rece
At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 16:38:25 -0800 (PST), Hugh Aguilar wrote:
> Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or
> any other Scheme, for speed?
As it happens, as a sanity check on various changes that I've made
recently, I've recently re-run a bunch of conventional Scheme
bench
Nice! Thanks.
Robby
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:40 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> 2668 msecs when I declare `cycle-length' as `(Integer -> Integer)' and
> change `(even? n)' to `else', or 2809 msecs if I add `[else 0]' instead
> of changing `(even? n)'.
>
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 18:30:21 -0600, Robby Find
2668 msecs when I declare `cycle-length' as `(Integer -> Integer)' and
change `(even? n)' to `else', or 2809 msecs if I add `[else 0]' instead
of changing `(even? n)'.
At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 18:30:21 -0600, Robby Findler wrote:
> And just to complete the list, how does the TR version fare?
>
> Robby
Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or any other
Scheme, for speed?
It seems easier to go from Racket to Gambit or Chicken than from Racket to CL
--- pretty much just a matter of using different libraries. It may even be
possible to have code that compiles under d
And just to complete the list, how does the TR version fare?
Robby
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 6:26 PM, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Thanks!
>
> Sometimes, a x3 difference means that we're missing a straightforward
> opportunity in performance, and that was the case here. The Racket
> program spent most of
Thanks!
Sometimes, a x3 difference means that we're missing a straightforward
opportunity in performance, and that was the case here. The Racket
program spent most of its time in generic `/' by pessimistically
expecting a non-integer result.
I've adjusted the JIT to optimistically compute and che
Neil Van Dyke wrote a PLaneT package for programmatic file editing.
http://planet.racket-lang.org/display.ss?package=progedit.plt&owner=neil
Is this what you're looking for?
Vincent
At Thu, 1 Nov 2012 23:49:41 -0400,
Patrick Mahoney wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> [1.1 ]
> Hello all,
>
> Is there a
I'm debating trying to use something like define-datatype, as used in
EOPL and PLAI (and available in the Racket languages that support those
books) early in my first-year undergraduate class. (Opinions on the
wisdom of this, or on my sanity in general, by direct e-mail, please.)
In a teaching
I don't think anyone is maintaining Dorai's package anymore.
He has become a master of toasts and doesn't have time for
his hobby anymore.
Consider taking it on as a service to the CL and Racket
communities -- Matthias
On Nov 4, 2012, at 2:31 PM, daniel rupistraliz wrote:
> Matthias Fellei
Matthias Felleisen writes:
>
>
> What Matthew and everyone else said is critical. Read those
> before reading on. Also consider using optimizations in Racket
> or converting to TR and asking for fixed-point numbers.
>
> ;; ---
>
> However, we do understand the need for running programs in
I want to add a pass in racket garbage collector for my project but i am
not getting the correct start point. I want to know entry point for garbage
collector in racket.
Racket Users list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/users
What Matthew and everyone else said is critical. Read those
before reading on. Also consider using optimizations in Racket
or converting to TR and asking for fixed-point numbers.
;; ---
However, we do understand the need for running programs in both worlds
(Racke and CL). An alternative is to
racket:
Welcome to Racket v5.2.1.
> (define (cycle-length n)
(cond
[(= n 1)
1]
[(odd? n)
(add1 (cycle-length (add1 (* 3 n]
[(even? n)
(add1 (cycle-length (/ n 2)))]))
(time (for ([i (in-range 1 100)])
(cycle-length i)))
>
cpu time:
On Sun, Nov 04, 2012 at 01:49:10AM -0400, Neil Van Dyke wrote:
> Edward Blake wrote at 11/02/2012 06:23 PM:
> >The kanji search app for example is mostly
> >intended to be a end user thing and may be distributed with 90 megs of
> >data files before compression (it contains a small subset of
> >Wikt
Currently: indirectly, yes, directly, no. But I plan to write up some
material that will make the transition from PLAI 2/e to SEwPR.
Half the problem is one of notation, which can be explained.
But PLAI covers explicitly many things that SEwPR seewps under the rug by
virtue of assuming you alrea
Shriram just to over-communicate here, you are saying that reading and
working through PLAIV2 would help us non-PLT-professionals grok the Semantics
Engineering book?
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:07 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
> Second edition, now newer and better, currently being written (but
Second edition, now newer and better, currently being written (but most of
the way there):
http://www.cs.brown.edu/courses/cs173/2012/book/
On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 9:55 AM, Asumu Takikawa wrote:
> On 2012-11-02 12:21:25 -0700, geb a wrote:
> > I've been working with redex (a little bit) trying
On 2012-11-02 12:21:25 -0700, geb a wrote:
> I've been working with redex (a little bit) trying to work my way
> through "Semantics Engineering". Is there anything resembling an
> idiots guide to programming languages?
You could try reading PLAI, which is a great book and available online:
http
At Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:25:09 + (UTC), daniel rupistraliz avez wrote:
> One motivation is speed, for example a recent example in the racket blog
> about
> the 2n+1 problem gives 1200 milliseconds in Racket and 500 in sbcl (without
> declaring fixnum or any other optimization).
Although it's n
27 matches
Mail list logo
