[racket] typed racket slow?

On 05/08/13 16:27, Ray Racine wrote:
> On a tangent, if you run your Racket on Linux (like anyone would use
> anything else :0 ) you can "install" *.rkt files as executables with
> binfmt.
>
> Very Short (no validation) Path
>
> 1) Create a shell script runracket.rkt in your racket installation bin.
> i.e. /usr/local/racket/bin/runracket
> #! /bin/sh
>
> racket -tm $1
>
> 2) Use your package manager to install binfmt.
>
> 3) Register .rkt files as executables handled by runracket.  As root:
>
> a) cd /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/
> b) echo ':RunRacket:E::rkt::/usr/local/racket/bin/runracket:' > register
>
> 4) Have a sherbet.
>
> Then assuming you have a simple helloworld.rkt file with a "main" your
> Racket file is now just another shell or executable.
>
> ray at rpr:~$ ./helloworld.rkt
> Hello there.
>
> Obviously the above should be made more robust, adjusted be installed on
> bootup etc, but that is the basic idea.
>
> Decent odds a Mac can do this as well.  Better odds Eli has something done
> along these lines polished to perfection. : )
>
> To remove the entry echo -1 to the entry.
>
> $ echo -1 RunRacket
>

It's too complicated. Just use the traditional "standard" for scripts.

$ echo '#!/usr/bin/env racket' > hello.rkt
$ echo '#lang racket/base' >> hello.rkt
$ echo '(display "world\n")' >> hello.rkt
$ chmod +x hello.rkt
$ ./hello.rkt
world

It's is compatible with all unix system. binfmt only works on linux.


>
>
> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean McBeth <sean.mcbeth at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Perhaps the EXEs take longer because they are not using a shared image of
>> Racket, thus the OS must load code that is 99% equivalent from two
>> different disk locations.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Manfred Lotz <manfred.lotz at arcor.de>wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 07:31:37 -0400
>>> Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Manfred Lotz
>>>> <manfred.lotz at arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 8 May 2013 06:19:27 -0400
>>>>> Carl Eastlund <cce at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm seeing similar results on my end; I timed by first running
>>>>>> "raco make" on both files, then timing "racket" on both.  I think
>>>>>> what we're seeing is a small startup time cost on Typed Racket.
>>>>>> I ran a longer benchmark and Typed Racket edges out untyped
>>>>>> Racket if I run a few million iterations (given this is such a
>>>>>> short computation).  The expressions I used are:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;; utest.rkt
>>>>>> (void
>>>>>>    (for/list {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}
>>>>>>      (distance
>>>>>>        (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))
>>>>>>        (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ;; test.rkt
>>>>>> (void
>>>>>>    (for/list: : (Listof Float) {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}
>>>>>>      (distance
>>>>>>        (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))
>>>>>>        (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds
>>>>>> for utest.rkt.  So there's a fraction of a second extra startup
>>>>>> time for Typed Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent
>>>>>> computation, so the difference depends on how much "real" work
>>>>>> you do after startup.  I don't know what causes that startup
>>>>>> cost, but hopefully this kind of benchmark will be useful to the
>>>>>> Typed Racket maintainers in closing the gap for future versions.
>>>>>> So, thanks for the example, Manfred!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Carl,
>>>>> This is interesting. If I run it I have around 5 seconds for the
>>>>> typed version and around 4 seconds for the untyped version. My
>>>>> system is a 64bit Linux.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Manfred
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What I ran was:
>>>>
>>>>    raco make test.rkt utest.rkt && time racket test.rkt && time racket
>>>> utest.rkt
>>>>
>>>> Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, does that give
>>>> you the same results you saw before?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yep, I did something different:
>>>
>>> Now going your way I get 3.7 sec for typed and 4.1 sec for untyped. It
>>> is interesting to note that if I do raco exe for both the executables
>>> run longer: 4 sec for typed and 4.7 sec for untyped.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Manfred Lotz
>>>>>   > <manfred.lotz at arcor.de> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>> I did a small test using typed racket.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is an example from the documentation:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> #lang typed/racket
>>>>>>> ;; test.rkt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (struct: pt ([x : Float] [y : Float]))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (: distance (pt pt -> Float))
>>>>>>> (define (distance p1 p2)
>>>>>>>    (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
>>>>>>>             (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is the untyped version:
>>>>>>> #lang racket
>>>>>>> ;; utest.rkt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (struct pt (x y))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (define (distance p1 p2)
>>>>>>>    (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))
>>>>>>>             (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Now running both:
>>>>>>> time racket test.rkt
>>>>>>> 4.675467891024383
>>>>>>> racket test.rkt  1.24s user 0.08s system 99% cpu 1.333 total
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> time racket utest.rkt
>>>>>>> 4.675467891024383
>>>>>>> racket utest.rkt  0.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.248 total
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It seems the typed version needs a lot of time for the type
>>>>>>> checking. The time for time checking could be cut mostly by:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> raco exe test.rkt
>>>>>>> time ./test
>>>>>>> 4.675467891024383
>>>>>>> ./test  0.49s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.531 total
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But still runtime is more than twice as long. I could get the
>>>>>>> impression that typed racket is generally slower.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Question: Is there any conclusion to be drawn from this (like
>>>>>>> that typed racket is slower than 'normal' racket)? Or is my
>>>>>>> test just a bad test?
>>>>>>>