[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: hastbables in scheme, are they slow? using goops is this madness
From: |
Maxime Devos |
Subject: |
Re: hastbables in scheme, are they slow? using goops is this madness |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Feb 2022 08:14:13 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Evolution 3.38.3-1 |
Stefan Israelsson Tampe schreef op di 22-02-2022 om 00:05 [+0100]:
> 2. For very large hash tables C based solutions are about 1.5-2.0
> faster.
> (for-each (lambda (i) (hashq-set! h i i)) (iota 20000000))
For what sizes is Scheme faster, and for what sizes is Scheme faster?
Where is the cut-off point?
Also, seems quite nice. While I haven't had noticed performance
problems yet with C hashtables, the Scheme implementation would
eliminate the problem of 'hash-for-each' forming a continuation
barrier.
> LICENSE
> LGPL v2 or v3
Guile is LGPL2+, so to be eventually integrated into Guile, shouldn't
it to LGPL2+ (there might eventually be a LGPLv4)?
Greetings,
Maxime.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part