<div dir="ltr">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 7:04 AM, Manfred Lotz <<a href="mailto:manfred.lotz@arcor.de" target="_blank">manfred.lotz@arcor.de</a>> wrote: <div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote"> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">On Wed, 8 May 2013 06:19:27 -0400 Carl Eastlund <<a href="mailto:cce@ccs.neu.edu">cce@ccs.neu.edu</a>> 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! > </div></div>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 </blockquote><div> </div><div>What I ran was: raco make test.rkt utest.rkt && time racket test.rkt && time racket utest.rkt </div><div>Just to make sure we're comparing apples to apples, does that give you the same results you saw before? </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 5:32 AM, Manfred Lotz <div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"> > <<a href="mailto:manfred.lotz@arcor.de">manfred.lotz@arcor.de</a>> 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? > > > > > > -- > > Manfred </div></div></blockquote></div></div></div>