3 ms·

If anyone missed it, Racket has finally (it has been planned and worked for few years now) moved by default to Chez Scheme (ie Racket CS) on v8.0 (Feb 2021) whi

If anyone missed it, Racket has finally (it has been planned and worked for few years now) moved by default to Chez Scheme (ie Racket CS) on v8.0 (Feb 2021) which has improved in most cases performance.

dermal 6y ago
Yes, and now, after three year and countless hour spent the new version (RacketCS) is running slower than the old one! Congratulations to Racket development team - well done! :)
- forgotpwd16 6y ago
  Benchmarks beg to differ: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2021/01/racket-status.html https://blog.racket-lang.org/2021/01/racket-status.html. But those may be (being the official ones) biased, so a third-party running them will be nice. Also performance wasn't the only reason. Maintainability and easier development were as well, which for language like Racket, I believe, are more important.
  - gus_massa 6y ago
    I agree. IIRC the benchmarks is the union of few benchmarks sets that were floating around, like some usual benchmarks for Scheme implementations [1] and old versions of the The Computer Language Benchmarks Game [2] In particular you can see the comparison of "Racket" (aka Racket CS) and "Racket BC" with the current version of the The Computer Language Benchmarks Game in https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/racket-racketbc.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... (The set of problems and measurements of runtime are made by someone that is not in the Racket team.) [1] That are somewhat bad for Racket because some of them use mutable pairs/cons. [2] They are frozen to test backward compatibility and to ensure any progress is due to improvements in the compiler.
    - samth 6y ago
      gus_massa knows this, but building Racket from source (which is basically just running a lot of Racket code) is now faster with Racket CS than with Racket BC.
notriskfree 6y ago
I think the aim was more for supportability. I assume if you enjoy Scheme; you would like to write more of your language in Scheme and less of it in C. Although that is somewhat contradicted by the plans to create a new syntax for Racket going forward. Chez Scheme by itself seems to be extremely fast.

dermal 6y ago

Yes, and now, after three year and countless hour spent the new version (RacketCS) is running slower than the old one! Congratulations to Racket development team - well done! :)

forgotpwd16 6y ago
Benchmarks beg to differ: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2021/01/racket-status.html https://blog.racket-lang.org/2021/01/racket-status.html. But those may be (being the official ones) biased, so a third-party running them will be nice. Also performance wasn't the only reason. Maintainability and easier development were as well, which for language like Racket, I believe, are more important.
- gus_massa 6y ago
  I agree. IIRC the benchmarks is the union of few benchmarks sets that were floating around, like some usual benchmarks for Scheme implementations [1] and old versions of the The Computer Language Benchmarks Game [2] In particular you can see the comparison of "Racket" (aka Racket CS) and "Racket BC" with the current version of the The Computer Language Benchmarks Game in https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/fastest/racket-racketbc.html https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/... (The set of problems and measurements of runtime are made by someone that is not in the Racket team.) [1] That are somewhat bad for Racket because some of them use mutable pairs/cons. [2] They are frozen to test backward compatibility and to ensure any progress is due to improvements in the compiler.
  - samth 6y ago
    gus_massa knows this, but building Racket from source (which is basically just running a lot of Racket code) is now faster with Racket CS than with Racket BC.

notriskfree 6y ago

I think the aim was more for supportability. I assume if you enjoy Scheme; you would like to write more of your language in Scheme and less of it in C. Although that is somewhat contradicted by the plans to create a new syntax for Racket going forward. Chez Scheme by itself seems to be extremely fast.