[racket-dev] new release policy

From: Jay McCarthy (jay.mccarthy at gmail.com)
Date: Fri Aug 13 09:20:17 EDT 2010

Thanks for debugging me Noel.

Since the API I added merely promises some sequence, there's nothing
preventing us from having it always return a future lazy stream that
can be viewed as a sequence if that ends up being faster. If someday
we have such nice lazy streams, then I predict we'll certainly want
similar functions and we'll have another request for making the
sequence api more like the lazy stream api.


On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:55 AM, Noel Welsh <noelwelsh at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:45 AM, Jay McCarthy <jay.mccarthy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I parse your comments like this:
>> - We can't do these sequence functions fast.
>> - When we didn't provide them, people complained that they were missing.
>> - When we provide them slowly, people will complain that Racket is slow.
>> - It is worse to be slow than featureless.
> I think this is incorrect. I read:
> - When we provide APIs we lock ourselves into them
> - The proposed sequence API is slow and can't be sped up without
> significant effort (cf worldwide shortage of Matthew-Flatt-hours)
> - We shouldn't lock ourselves into a slow API without considering
> alternatives (cf performance of stream/lazy list abstraction)
> N.

Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93

Posted on the dev mailing list.