[racket] translate from Racket to Common Lisp

On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 7:58 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Sun, 4 Nov 2012 21:03:15 -0500, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>> > 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?
>
> I think Gambit uses less memory for pairs and vector --- one less word
> per object.
>
> That wouldn't explain the x2.2 difference, and on further
> investigation, it turns out that I was running a 32-bit Gambit build.
> Enclosed is a comparison of 32-bit Gambit and 32-bit Racket. (Switching
> my Chicken installation seems like too much work for a sanity check.)
> You'll see that Racket still x1.41 Gambit's time for "paraffins", which
> is a closer match for the difference in allocation sizes.

Thanks for the extra investigation.

It's impressive to note the change in relative performance for Racket
over past 3 years since you published the benchmarks on the blog --
Racket has gone from slower than Gambit on the majority of benchmarks,
sometimes by a significant margin, to faster on most of them, and
never more than 2x slower (except ctak).

Thanks, Matthew!