The new backed is overall faster according to that post. No, according to that post, the new back-end itself is massively slower than current Racket by every s

The new backed is overall faster according to that post. No, according to that post, the new back-end itself is massively slower than current Racket by every single measure shown. To reiterate, I’m talking about startup and load times, memory use, expand and compile times, and build times (i.e. time to compile the back-end itself). All slower. (Are you sure you're not referring to code compiled using the new back-end?) I grant that there is some benefit in that the longer compile times result in an improvement in some benchmarks, but that doesn’t negate that the new back-end is still slower than the old one by every measure. > Racket is much faster than python or PHP. This is funny because although you will find benchmarks out there to support this point, in my experience of writing and using Racket programs it has never hold up. Most recent example: I participated in Advent of Code this year, and there was almost never a Racket solution posted that wasn't ten times slower (and in my opinion harder to read) than the simple & idiomatic Python solution. I love the Racket language, and there are some DSLs like Pollen that do things I simply can’t imagine attempting anywhere else. But it’s for sure my last choice for speed, based on personal experience.