3 ms·
Of course it's meaningful. The racket community constantly emphasizes `the quality` of the Racketm but in reality they are not able to produce anything that wou
by dytyramb 4y ago
Of course it's meaningful.
The racket community constantly emphasizes `the quality` of the Racketm but in reality they are not able to produce anything that would consume less than 0.5 Gb! Even Microsoft somehow manages to do that (with much more features than DrRacket ever had). Acording to Racket community, Racket should be better than a `typical Microsoft product`, but dont even come close.
- orbz 4y agoYou’re missing one of the fundamental parts of engineering here: trade offs. Perhaps first start memory consumption hasn’t been a priority yet. Maybe the system pre-allocates memory to speed up later tasks and VS will have a larger memory footprint under normal working loads. In any case, it does not appear that you have critically analyzed the situation and your post comes off as needlessly divisive.
- gus_massa 4y ago> Maybe the system pre-allocates memory to speed up later tasks I don't think so. But part of the problem is that DrRacket includes the equivalent of the compiler and linker and perhaps also the standard library of C# or whatever you are using in VS. I don't think that explains all the difference, because Racket use untyped variables and lot of lambdas for "callbacks" and other functional tuff. Another problem is that macros make syntax highlighting and other stuff more complicated. Some people (like me) think these features make programing easier. Try Racket until you don't see the parens, and make your own opinion. (Anyway, I suggest to disable the extensions of DrRacket that you are not using. That decreases the loading time a lot.)