On 19/02/18 17:39, Ben Greenman wrote:
> Hi Paulo,
>
> I hope you try using Typed Racket. If the performance turns out to be
> a problem, we can try to help.
>
>
> Here are some other experiences that people have shared on the list:
>
> https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/rfM6koVbOS8
On 19/02/18 17:10, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>>
>> Thanks, interesting to see that fully typed programs run faster though.
>
> When I say “fully typed” you need to understand that some basic Racket
> code may never be typed and is included
If someone is looking for a challenging and interesting `#lang` project...
Build a `#lang rust`. https://www.rust-lang.org/
You might first implement mapping the non-checking semantics to Racket
code (so that you can run valid Rust programs), and then later try to
implement all the checking (
Test posting, please ignore, sorry
On Monday, February 19, 2018 at 12:40:38 PM UTC-8, cwebber wrote:
>
> Claes Wallin writes:
>
> > On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 9:43:34 PM UTC+8, stewart mackenzie
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> We're partially through the development of a nix{os}
Claes Wallin writes:
> On Sunday, February 11, 2018 at 9:43:34 PM UTC+8, stewart mackenzie wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> We're partially through the development of a nix{os} utility which
>> transforms an info.rkt into a nix expression.
>>
>> https://github.com/clacke/racket2nix
>>
>> It'll be helpfu
I'm excited for this project! As a user of both Racket and NixOS, I've been
hoping for something like this to come along for a while. I wish I had more
time to devote to helping it succeed. I'll probably poke at it a little
with a small side project and try to give feedback on using it.
--
You
Hi Paulo,
I hope you try using Typed Racket. If the performance turns out to be
a problem, we can try to help.
Here are some other experiences that people have shared on the list:
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users/rfM6koVbOS8/klVzjKJ9BgAJ
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/racket-users
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 9:45 AM, Paulo Matos wrote:
>
> Thanks, interesting to see that fully typed programs run faster though.
When I say “fully typed” you need to understand that some basic Racket
code may never be typed and is included here. I am referring to the code
that is under your contr
On 19/02/18 13:18, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> This characterization is still good:
>
> — fully typed programs might run significantly faster than untyped programs
> (30%)
> — the performance of partially typed programs is all over the map (10% slower
> to 1% slower)
> — it remains dif
> On Feb 19, 2018, at 7:04 AM, 'Paulo Matos' via Racket Users
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> There was a time, many moons ago, not too far from the initial
> implementations of typed racked when Sam was working on it that moving
> from Racket to Typed Racket had a huge impact on performance.
>
> Nowada
Hi,
There was a time, many moons ago, not too far from the initial
implementations of typed racked when Sam was working on it that moving
from Racket to Typed Racket had a huge impact on performance.
Nowadays that might not be the case. I also noticed that using typed
racket might in itself impro
11 matches
Mail list logo
