First, there's no longer a difference because yjqww6 just had a PR merged that improves the Racket performance.
The performance difference that was there was mostly because the Chez code was run with `--optimize-level 3` which turns off safety. If that was changed to `--optimize-level 2` the timing became much slower. Sam On Mon, Mar 1, 2021 at 2:39 AM [email protected] <[email protected]> wrote: > > There’s this benchmark on BF interpreter where the Racket and Chez Scheme > implementations are very similar, but Chez Scheme is much faster than Racket > 8.0 at interpreting bench.b (3s vs 8s) and mandel.b (40s vs 136s). > > There’s the “Racket (Syntax Object)” variant that directly parses BF’s syntax > into Racket syntax object, which is faster (3.7s for bench, 82s for mandel), > but still significantly behind Chez Scheme’s naive interpreter. > > Profiling doesn’t give very illuminating results, saying most of the cost is > from interpreting BF’s loop instruction. > > Given that Racket is on Chez, could this benchmark reveal some low hanging > fruit for improving Racket’s performance? > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected]. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/83b2819d-8295-4769-944d-fa0c155976dan%40googlegroups.com. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/CAK%3DHD%2BY6e%3D7QXJZhOhF8-QbNc5HGu%2BUcrGzr1HhctSp1sA470g%40mail.gmail.com.
