To boil down my comments (and perhaps be clearer), my view is:
1. For someone who is running micro-benchmarks to 'shop' for a
language+implementation, the standard advice is right: benchmark with
command-line racket.
2. For a new user concerned about performance under DrRacket, I think such
users w
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 7:23 PM, Gustavo Massaccesi wrote:
>>> > He wants an Arc-style lambda function. Hmph.
>
>>> Does it mean that I'll get an Arc-style lambda function eventually, or that
>>> I'll get an explanation why it's a bad ide— wait, nevermind, I can get
>>> whatever I want, 'cause it's
>> > He wants an Arc-style lambda function. Hmph.
>> Does it mean that I'll get an Arc-style lambda function eventually, or that
>> I'll get an explanation why it's a bad ide— wait, nevermind, I can get
>> whatever I want, 'cause it's Racket. Mwa-ha-ha.
>> (I'd still welcome an explanation, tho.)
> > > > Why does he think "Performance sucks"?
> > >
> > > Because here's the list of things that are slow
>
> DrRacket is an operating system running on top of your other OS
> to make life for Racket developers simple. It was originally developed
> for beginners, but I eat my own dog food, and I f
At Mon, 5 May 2014 11:53:09 -0400, Greg Hendershott wrote:
> Would it make sense for will executors [^1] to have a definition of
> "unreachability" that includes GC, as now, but also immanent program
> termination (and they run automatically on termination)?
I don't think that would work well.
Su
Greg, hello.
On 2014 May 5, at 19:08, Greg Hendershott wrote:
>> I'm honestly not being funny, but do you mean 'imminent' program
>> termination, or have I just leaned about yet another bit of
>> programming-language-theory arcana? On this list, one can never be quite
>> sure.
>
> That's an
Thanks for your advice.
Source is now on https://gist.github.com/joskoot/c80cee6fadce3434e941
Jos
_
From: Laurent [mailto:laurent.ors...@gmail.com]
Sent: martes, 06 de mayo de 2014 21:56
To: Jos Koot
Cc: Racket mailing list
Subject: Re: [racket] partitions
Why not making it a package?
Why not making it a package? Or at least share it on pasterack [1] or gist
[2]?
I'm sure other people will be happy to find it in the future.
Laurent
[1] http://pasterack.org/
[2] gist.github.com
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 8:52 PM, Jos Koot wrote:
> Hi Phil, Deren and Jensaxel,
> Thanks for your
Hi Phil, Deren and Jensaxel,
Thanks for your quick responses.
To Phil:
I have read your code, but it is not lazy.
I think that for large n memory is going to be a problem.
Your eager approach resembles much my lazy code, but I produce the
partitions in reverse order.
Thanks anyway.
To Deeren
I'
Hi Jos,
Actually I'd love to have you share it. I did write myself a partition
generator but it was eager and I never went back to make it into a sequence
or stream, though I'm sure it was somewhere in my to-do list. How are they
ordered?
Deren
On Tue, May 6, 2014 at 2:26 PM, Jos Koot wrote:
Hi
Library *math/number-theory* provides procedure *partitions*,
which fastly tells you how many partitions a given nonnegative integer has
(based on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory))
I have not found any procedure that generates the partitions themselves,
nor in PLT Racket
On May 5, 2014, at 3:05 AM, Artyom Kazak wrote:
> First of all: I really hope that people won't get dissuaded from learning
> Racket after seeing some posts written by a person who genuinely enjoys
> learning Racket.
I enjoyed your notes, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered to re-read
them an
12 matches
Mail list logo
