Arc Forumnew | comments | leaders | submitlogin
1 point by Pauan 4752 days ago | link | parent

It seems the problem was that quote was slow in Nu. I've fixed that, so here's the new times:

   (timeit (let a '(1 2) (car a)))
  
  ar      time: 8.613  gc: 0.308  mem:  460.696
  Nu      time: 7.671  gc: 0.0    mem:   88.976
  Arc 3.1 time: 5.33   gc: 0.35   mem: 5050.25
  
  
   (timeit (let (a b) '(1 2) a))
   
  ar      time: 12.111  gc: 0.436  mem: -19278.128
  Nu      time: 11.438  gc: 0.324  mem:   1435.016  (apply fn)
  Nu      time: 8.96    gc: 0.0    mem:    125.352  (Racket let*)
  Arc 3.1 time: 7.0     gc: 0.35   mem:  -2124.82


   Overhead
  ar      - 3.498
  Arc 3.1 - 1.67
  Nu      - 1.289
Nu now has the lowest overhead out of the three...! Also note that Nu does not spend any time in garbage collection, unlike ar and Arc 3.1.

This seems to be a common trend: Nu either spending no time in garbage collection, or less time than ar and Arc 3.1. Not sure how important that is compared to raw speed, but it's nice.

Unfortunately, this also demonstrates that applying nested functions is slower than using a Racket let*. So the reason Nu won the speed contest earlier wasn't because of my destructuring idea: Nu was just plain faster than ar in general.