[racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp

From: Sam Tobin-Hochstadt (samth at ccs.neu.edu)
Date: Sun Nov 4 21:03:15 EST 2012

On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 8:51 PM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 20:35:30 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> Do you have a sense of why Racket performs poorly on the `paraffins`
>> benchmark?
> I wouldn't go so far as "poor" for that result,

I only ventured that characterization because it's one of only 3 where
Racket isn't within a factor of 2 of the fastest implementation, the
other two being ctak and takr2, both totally artificial monstrosities.

> but, anyway... I think
> that benchmark turns out to measure mostly allocation. Racket in 32-bit
> mode, where pair and vectors take up half as much space, runs almost
> twice as fast as Racket in 64-bit mode.

Is the Gambit allocator that much faster than ours?  Or does it use
less memory for pairs and vectors?
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu

Posted on the users mailing list.