<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div><div><div><div><div>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. <br><br></div> Very Short (no validation) Path <br><br></div>1) Create a shell script runracket.rkt in your racket installation bin. i.e. /usr/local/racket/bin/runracket<br>#! /bin/sh<br><br>racket -tm $1<br><br></div>2) Use your package manager to install binfmt.<br> <br></div>3) Register .rkt files as executables handled by runracket. As root:<br><br>a) cd /proc/sys/fs/binfmt_misc/<br></div>b) echo ':RunRacket:E::rkt::/usr/local/racket/bin/runracket:' > register<br><br></div> 4) Have a sherbet.<br><br></div>Then assuming you have a simple helloworld.rkt file with a "main" your Racket file is now just another shell or executable.<br><br>ray@rpr:~$ ./helloworld.rkt <br>Hello there.<br> <br></div><div>Obviously the above should be made more robust, adjusted be installed on bootup etc, but that is the basic idea.<br><br></div><div>Decent odds a Mac can do this as well. Better odds Eli has something done along these lines polished to perfection. : )<br> <br></div><div>To remove the entry echo -1 to the entry.<br><br></div><div>$ echo -1 RunRacket<br></div><div><br><br></div><div><br></div><br><br><br><div><div><div><br><br><div><div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div> <div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 8:21 AM, Sean McBeth <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:sean.mcbeth@gmail.com" target="_blank">sean.mcbeth@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">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.<br> </div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br> <div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:55 AM, Manfred Lotz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:manfred.lotz@arcor.de" target="_blank">manfred.lotz@arcor.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> On Wed, 8 May 2013 07:31:37 -0400<br> <div><div>Carl Eastlund <<a href="mailto:cce@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">cce@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote:<br> <br> > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Manfred Lotz<br> > <<a href="mailto:manfred.lotz@arcor.de" target="_blank">manfred.lotz@arcor.de</a>> wrote:<br> ><br> > > On Wed, 8 May 2013 06:19:27 -0400<br> > > Carl Eastlund <<a href="mailto:cce@ccs.neu.edu" target="_blank">cce@ccs.neu.edu</a>> wrote:<br> > ><br> > > > I'm seeing similar results on my end; I timed by first running<br> > > > "raco make" on both files, then timing "racket" on both. I think<br> > > > what we're seeing is a small startup time cost on Typed Racket.<br> > > > I ran a longer benchmark and Typed Racket edges out untyped<br> > > > Racket if I run a few million iterations (given this is such a<br> > > > short computation). The expressions I used are:<br> > > ><br> > > > ;; utest.rkt<br> > > > (void<br> > > > (for/list {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}<br> > > > (distance<br> > > > (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))<br> > > > (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))<br> > > ><br> > > > and<br> > > ><br> > > > ;; test.rkt<br> > > > (void<br> > > > (for/list: : (Listof Float) {[i (in-range (* 10 1000 1000))]}<br> > > > (distance<br> > > > (pt (+ i 1.2) (+ i 2.1))<br> > > > (pt (+ i 4.3) (+ i 5.6)))))<br> > > ><br> > > ><br> > > > I see just under 5 seconds for test.rkt and just over 5 seconds<br> > > > for utest.rkt. So there's a fraction of a second extra startup<br> > > > time for Typed Racket, but it takes less time for each subsequent<br> > > > computation, so the difference depends on how much "real" work<br> > > > you do after startup. I don't know what causes that startup<br> > > > cost, but hopefully this kind of benchmark will be useful to the<br> > > > Typed Racket maintainers in closing the gap for future versions.<br> > > > So, thanks for the example, Manfred!<br> > > ><br> > ><br> > > Hi Carl,<br> > > This is interesting. If I run it I have around 5 seconds for the<br> > > typed version and around 4 seconds for the untyped version. My<br> > > system is a 64bit Linux.<br> > ><br> > > --<br> > > Manfred<br> > ><br> ><br> > What I ran was:<br> ><br> > raco make test.rkt utest.rkt && time racket test.rkt && time racket<br> > utest.rkt<br> ><br> > Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, does that give<br> > you the same results you saw before?<br> ><br> ><br> <br> </div></div>Yep, I did something different:<br> <br> Now going your way I get 3.7 sec for typed and 4.1 sec for untyped. It<br> is interesting to note that if I do raco exe for both the executables<br> run longer: 4 sec for typed and 4.7 sec for untyped.<br> <div><div><br> <br> <br> > > > On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Manfred Lotz<br> > > > <<a href="mailto:manfred.lotz@arcor.de" target="_blank">manfred.lotz@arcor.de</a>> wrote:<br> > > ><br> > > > > Hi there,<br> > > > > I did a small test using typed racket.<br> > > > ><br> > > > > This is an example from the documentation:<br> > > > ><br> > > > > #lang typed/racket<br> > > > > ;; test.rkt<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (struct: pt ([x : Float] [y : Float]))<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (: distance (pt pt -> Float))<br> > > > > (define (distance p1 p2)<br> > > > > (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))<br> > > > > (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))<br> > > > ><br> > > > > This is the untyped version:<br> > > > > #lang racket<br> > > > > ;; utest.rkt<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (struct pt (x y))<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (define (distance p1 p2)<br> > > > > (sqrt (+ (sqr (- (pt-x p2) (pt-x p1)))<br> > > > > (sqr (- (pt-y p2) (pt-y p1))))))<br> > > > ><br> > > > > (distance (pt 1.2 2.1) (pt 4.3 5.6))<br> > > > ><br> > > > ><br> > > > > Now running both:<br> > > > > time racket test.rkt<br> > > > > 4.675467891024383<br> > > > > racket test.rkt 1.24s user 0.08s system 99% cpu 1.333 total<br> > > > ><br> > > > ><br> > > > > time racket utest.rkt<br> > > > > 4.675467891024383<br> > > > > racket utest.rkt 0.22s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.248 total<br> > > > ><br> > > > ><br> > > > > It seems the typed version needs a lot of time for the type<br> > > > > checking. The time for time checking could be cut mostly by:<br> > > > ><br> > > > > raco exe test.rkt<br> > > > > time ./test<br> > > > > 4.675467891024383<br> > > > > ./test 0.49s user 0.03s system 99% cpu 0.531 total<br> > > > ><br> > > > > But still runtime is more than twice as long. I could get the<br> > > > > impression that typed racket is generally slower.<br> > > > ><br> > > > ><br> > > > > Question: Is there any conclusion to be drawn from this (like<br> > > > > that typed racket is slower than 'normal' racket)? Or is my<br> > > > > test just a bad test?<br> > > > ><br> > > > ><br> > > > > --<br> > > > > Manfred<br> > ><br> ><br> <br> <br> </div></div><div><div>____________________<br> Racket Users list:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br> </div></div></blockquote></div><br></div> </div></div><br>____________________<br> Racket Users list:<br> <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br> <br></blockquote></div><br></div>