[racket] generator performance

On Tue, Sep 18, 2012 at 6:52 PM, Greg Hendershott
<greghendershott at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I agree with others that the cost of capturing continuations is the
>> culprit in this case. The run-time system has support for faster
>> continuations that work in constrained settings (currently used to
>> implement futures), and it might be possible to make those
>> continuations kick in work for a typical generator, but I'm not sure.
>
> IIUC continuations are also the foundation for Racket threads.

Certain aspects of the continuation implementation are also used in
parts of the `future` system, but continuations are *not* used to
implement `thread` and associated facilities in Racket, and the
relationship between continuations and futures is entirely under the
hood.
-- 
sam th
samth at ccs.neu.edu