[plt-dev] coding

Sam claims that the original split is twice as fast as my re-design.


On May 14, 2010, at 10:42 AM, Jay McCarthy wrote:

> And how is the performance after the fix? Is the opaque coding worth  
> it?
>
> On Fri, May 14, 2010 at 8:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> On May 14, 2010, at 9:43 AM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> (define (stress-test split)
>>>  (define n 20000)
>>>  (define l (build-list n add1))
>>>  (define _ (begin (collect-garbage) (collect-garbage)))
>>>  (define x
>>>   (time
>>>    (for/list ((i (in-range n)))
>>>      (define-values (x y) (split-at-right l i))
>>>      (length y))))
>>>  (void))
>>
>>
>> Sam pointed out my crucial error: when you abstract, use check  
>> syntax. (In
>> case you can't see it, there's a hard-linked call to split-at-right  
>> not the
>> parameter split.)_________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
> Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
> http://teammccarthy.org/jay
>
> "The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93