Why does Racket perform so slowly on benchmarks compared to Clojure and SBCL?
Why Racket? Why Lisp?
31–40 of 295 posts
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#32When visited with w3m I got spaces breaking words frequently. Is there any justification to use complex html to control intra-word spacing for a web page?
Those are soft hyphens, which supplement the crappy hyphenation support built in to most browsers. w3m should probably just ignore them, but it looks like your version is broken[1].
[1] https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=441934
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#33Why does Racket perform so slowly on benchmarks compared to Clojure and SBCL?
> Why does Racket perform so slowly on benchmarks compared to Clojure and SBCL?
Clojure benefits from the optimization of the JVM and SBCL has a couple of pretty bad-ass hackers working on the compiler. Racket on the other hand uses a pretty of the shelf JIT compiler which might not be as specialized as the other two.
Language-wise, there is hardly anything that would make Racket inherently slower than Clojure. Maybe continuations.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, middle clicking on the page to start a scroll got weird as well. In defense of why-homoiconicity-is-cool: it's useful to build pipelines of things in code. Imagine if you had a series of functions that manipulate an audio signal. You could create a pipeline of these on the fly just by putting the functions in a list, and then reflecting the data against it. You can imagine exposing this to a user - they check s…
> Imagine if you had a series of functions that manipulate an audio signal. You could create a pipeline of these on the fly just by putting the functions in a list, and then reflecting the data against it. That's not an example of homoiconicity.
Thanks, and apologies to the readers.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#35From what I've seen out of the Clojure community over the past few years, it seems like they're far more likely (and able) to offer up concrete examples of how Clojure makes their businesses and products successful in a way that an imperative language could not. So, yay Clojure community, and boo on hand-wavy Lisp people. e.g.: http://www.kreuzwerker.de/en/blog/posts/why-clojure-rocks-2/ https://news.ycombinator.com/…
That is also a sore point from the Lisp community in regard to Clojure.
Clojure devs are willing to compromise a bit to allow a good integration within the JVM and other implementations, thus allowing some shops to buy into Clojure.
Whereas many in the Common Lisp community will not, no matter what.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#36Many of the last items in the list should be in the category "Scheme". Racket is a dialect from Scheme, but it still is a Scheme. The syntax-case macro transformations are available in most Scheme systems.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume it'd be the same as people complaining about significant whitespace in python. No one who actually programs in python complains about the whitespace.
I find it a pain and error prone when having to change indentation in python code. E.g. when adding an 'if' in front of a block of code. So easy to miss a line or mess up the indentation in the block itself and then you might not spot an error until run time.
I was under the impression that Python emits an error about inconsistent indentation at compile time (the initial parsing and interpretation of a script file), not runtime (+x time units later, after the program has started). Is that incorrect?
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would assume it'd be the same as people complaining about significant whitespace in python. No one who actually programs in python complains about the whitespace.
I program in python (and C/C++) and really dislike python's whitespace handling. I think giving semantic meaning to one of the least-standardized aspects of text (tabs/spaces) is a bad decision through and through.
That's the thing. Python does standardise it. 4 spaces, no tabs.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find it a pain and error prone when having to change indentation in python code. E.g. when adding an 'if' in front of a block of code. So easy to miss a line or mess up the indentation in the block itself and then you might not spot an error until run time.
I was under the impression that Python emits an error about inconsistent indentation at compile time (the initial parsing and interpretation of a script file), not runtime (+x time units later, after the program has started). Is that incorrect?
Such errors are caught at compile time. I think the prior poster was speaking in a general sense in which runtime means any time after source file editing.
Re: Why Racket? Why Lisp?
#40From what I've seen out of the Clojure community over the past few years, it seems like they're far more likely (and able) to offer up concrete examples of how Clojure makes their businesses and products successful in a way that an imperative language could not. So, yay Clojure community, and boo on hand-wavy Lisp people. e.g.: http://www.kreuzwerker.de/en/blog/posts/why-clojure-rocks-2/ https://news.ycombinator.com/…
That is also a sore point from the Lisp community in regard to Clojure. Clojure devs are willing to compromise a bit to allow a good integration within the JVM and other implementations, thus allowing some shops to buy into Clojure. Whereas many in the Common Lisp community will not, no matter what.
[deleted]