[plt-scheme] Typed, Contracts, and Normal Scheme Performance Comparison?

On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 1:29 PM, Robby Findler <robby at cs.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> PLT's contract system encourages cheap contracts, mostly because
> contracts live on module boundaries and tight loops tend not to be
> across module boundaries.
>
> While I have not done anything close to a careful study, I did
> carefully measure the effect of dropping contracts from drscheme and
> the impact was negligible.
>

Thanks for the reply. What does your intuition say about the
performance of using typed-scheme instead of contracts? Would the
difference also be negligible?

Regarding this question, I would even hope that by using typed scheme,
the compiler could use this annotations to improve compiled code, but
as far as i know this as not been done yet, right? On the other hand,
then, typed-scheme shouldn't have any performance degradation when
comparing to normal scheme as it is not a runtime feature, like
contracts, or am I wrong?

> Robby
>
> On 11/21/08, Paulo J. Matos <pocmatos at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> I would be interested in seeing some comparison between the
>> performance (time / memory) of modules created with Scheme (untyped,
>> no contracts), contracts in module frontiers and typed scheme.
>>
>> Anyone did any experiments or have any useful insights regarding this?
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> --
>> Paulo Jorge Matos - pocmatos at gmail.com
>> Webpage: http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm
>> _________________________________________________
>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>>
>>
>



-- 
Paulo Jorge Matos - pocmatos at gmail.com
Webpage: http://www.personal.soton.ac.uk/pocm