[racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp

Has anybody done any benchmarks comparing Racket, Gambit, Chicken, or any other Scheme, for speed?

It seems easier to go from Racket to Gambit or Chicken than from Racket to CL --- pretty much just a matter of using different libraries. It may even be possible to have code that compiles under different Scheme systems using a compiler-switch and wrappers around the comparable libraries to provide a common API.

I'm learning Scheme. I'm starting out with Gambit rather than Racket on the assumption that Gambit is the fastest and hence the one that I will end up using eventually, after I get past the learning stage and begin writing programs that people other than myself will use, at which time speed will be an issue. Also, Gambit has a 64-bit x86 assembler, which Racket lacks, and I primarily intend to use Scheme as an overgrown macro-assembler for compiler-writing.

P.S. I'm working my way through SICP --- is that generally considered to be the best way to learn Scheme? I wish there was some way that I could just flash-program my brain with Scheme, so I could skip all of this learning-curve and get on with writing programs. :-)



Date: Fri, 2 Nov 2012 16:25:09 +0000 (UTC)

From: daniel rupistraliz avez <danielrupistralizavez at yahoo.es>
To: users at racket-lang.org
Subject: [racket] translate  from Racket to Common Lisp
Message-ID: <loom.20121102T171520-440 at post.gmane.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii

  I would like to make a program that translate from Racket to Common Lisp. 

  One motivation is speed, for example a recent example in the racket blog about
the 2n+1 problem gives 1200 milliseconds in Racket and 500 in sbcl (without
declaring fixnum or any other optimization).
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20121104/945a184f/attachment-0001.html>