[plt-scheme] xxx chooses MzScheme as preferred language

On 01/06/06, Joe Marshall <jmarshall at alum.mit.edu> wrote:
> On 5/31/06, Prabhakar Ragde <plragde at uwaterloo.ca> wrote:
> > Obviously there are times when speed is the bottleneck and the deciding
> > factor. But I suspect we computer scientists tend to make it an issue
> > when it is not, simply because it is easier to compare hard numbers than
> > the more vague and softer qualities associated with the broader goals I
> > mentioned.
>

Let me try the quiz:

> What is the *fastest* Scheme implementation?
>

Bigloo?

> What is the *most popular* Scheme implementation?
>

PLT-Scheme?

> If performance matters, why aren't these the same?
>

Don't know...

In 5 secs? Do I get, at least, a bike???
Seriously... Problem with bigloo which seems to be fast is that it is
not pure scheme, you have to add some extra info to the code so it
gets optimized, which personally doesn't bother me. In my oppinion I
think that if to make it fast we need to provide more info, why not?
Afterall, if we need it fast we will go and int a; float b;, etc, so
why not do it in scheme?

For me it is still better to (if it could be possible in plt-scheme):
(define (foo (a int) (b float)) (returns int) ...)
than
int foo(int a, float b) {...}

I say that 90% of the time I know for sure the type of variables, so
why not give it to the compiler to make code fast?

Cheers,

Paulo matos


> --
> ~jrm
> _________________________________________________
>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>


-- 
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocm at sat inesc-id pt
Web: http://sat.inesc-id.pt/~pocm
Computer and Software Engineering
INESC-ID - SAT Group