At Thu, 31 Jan 2019 11:08:35 -0500, David Storrs wrote:
> One thing that surprised me is
> that there are a handful of tests (tak1, dynamic2, tak, mazefun,
> maze2, collatz-q, collatz) where Racket/CS actually outperformed CS.
> How is that possible?
I have not investigated closely, but Racket CS
Thank you for all the hard work you've put into this, everyone.
The benchmark graphs are impressive! One thing that surprised me is
that there are a handful of tests (tak1, dynamic2, tak, mazefun,
maze2, collatz-q, collatz) where Racket/CS actually outperformed CS.
How is that possible?
On Thu,
Just wanted to say thank you for the update and for the honest report.
I look forward to using Racket CS, and to seeing how easily new features
can be incorporated :)
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 2:49 PM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Here's a new status report on Racket CS:
>
> http://blog.racket-lang.org
This is really impressive work!
On Tue, Jan 29, 2019 at 9:49 AM Matthew Flatt wrote:
> Here's a new status report on Racket CS:
>
> http://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html
>
> Short version: Racket CS is done in a useful sense, but we'll wait
> until it gets better before
Here's a new status report on Racket CS:
http://blog.racket-lang.org/2019/01/racket-on-chez-status.html
Short version: Racket CS is done in a useful sense, but we'll wait
until it gets better before making it the default Racket
implementation.
Matthew
--
You received this message because you
5 matches
Mail list logo
