4 ms·

That might have become more true recently because of the Racket-on-Chez compiler, but until then Racket was in most cases slower than Common Lisp because it was

That might have become more true recently because of the Racket-on-Chez compiler, but until then Racket was in most cases slower than Common Lisp because it wasn't AOT compiled to the metal, which Common Lisp is. I also like CLOS (the Common Lisp object system) better than the object systems available in Racket, as well as Common Lisp's macro system. But that's just personal preference. The existence of Typed Racket is pushing me to explore Racket more.

gmfawcett 5y ago
> it wasn't AOT compiled to the metal, which Common Lisp is. It's required that a CL implementation supports compilation, but compiling to machine code isn't required. e.g., Clisp has a bytecode compiler. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp#Compiler_and_interpreter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Lisp#Compiler_and_inter... - https://clisp.sourceforge.io/impnotes.html#bytecode https://clisp.sourceforge.io/impnotes.html#bytecode
- lispm 5y ago
  Though they experimented with a native code JIT...