<div dir="ltr">Oddly ray@rpr:~$ time racket r.rkt real 0m0.052s user 0m0.040s sys 0m0.012s ray@rpr:~$ time racket tr.rkt real 0m0.958s user 0m0.876s sys 0m0.080s </div><div class="gmail_extra"> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:35 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt <<a href="mailto:samth@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">samth@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="im">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 6:19 AM, Carl Eastlund <<a href="mailto:cce@ccs.neu.edu">cce@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote: > > 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! </div>This is all true, and you can see it in simpler examples. The empty modules: #lang typed/racket/base and #lang racket/base have the following timings: [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test.rkt real 0m0.592s user 0m0.516s sys 0m0.064s [samth@hermes:~/tmp plt] time racket test2.rkt real 0m0.065s user 0m0.040s sys 0m0.024s So you can see about 500 ms of extra overhead. Most of this time is in loading and executing the runtime dependencies of Typed Racket, which aren't used here, but which the implementation architecture of Typed Racket makes it basically impossible to reduce. We've worked hard to reduce this cost, but it's hard to go much further. Sam <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">____________________ Racket Users list: <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> </div>