4 ms·
As a Racket dabbler, I’d say there are a couple things: - performant implementations (SBCL in particular is a standout). I mean, Racket’s pretty good, and will
by peatmoss 8y ago
As a Racket dabbler, I’d say there are a couple things:
- performant implementations (SBCL in particular is a standout). I mean, Racket’s pretty good, and will typically blow the doors off Python, but SBCL is in a different league.
- multiple implementations conforming more or less to a standard. This can also be a distraction, but is on balance a nice thing to have, particularly if you wanted, for example, an implementation that ran on the JVM (ABCL).
- different set of libraries. Racket’s library situation is pretty good, but sometimes CL will have something that Racket doesn’t (and sometimes the other way around)
- sigzero 8y agoRacket should be becoming more performant once the Chez integration is done.
- dleslie 8y agoI wouldn't hold your breath; Racket isn't that much slower than Chez, and both are slower than sbcl. https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/ https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/which-programs-are-fast.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
- bad_login 8y agoAccording to Mathew Flatt it will fasten racket. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09AJUK6IiM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t09AJUK6IiM