

How I feel about Scheme's performance - gnosis
http://prael.wordpress.com/2008/06/29/how-i-feel-about-schemes-performance/

======
mark_l_watson
How do I feel about Scheme's runtime performance? I feel happy :-)

Seriously, most Scheme implementations are _fast_ _enough_. I use Gambit-C for
writing small memory and fast command line utilities and some other utility
type applications. I don't much use Racket, but the JIT compiler seems to
produce good results and (like Chicken) it has great contributed libraries.

Ruby is fairly much my favorite language but it is much slower than even
Scheme (e.g.,
[http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all...](http://shootout.alioth.debian.org/u32/benchmark.php?test=all&lang=racket&lang2=yarv)).
In a lot of cases runtime performance does not matter nearly as much as the
agility of a language.

------
srean
I did not know Stalin could compile to LLVM bytecode. I thought it could only
compile to C. It takes a while to compile code but the compiled code is
blazing fast, that too, without type annotations.

Is the LLVM support new ? Then I am pleased that Stalin development has become
active again.

Another fast scheme is Mosh-scheme and Ypsilon, the latter compiles to native
code directly.

~~~
wtallis
It looks like he's saying you can use LLVM to JIT compile the C that gets
generated from the Scheme code.

~~~
srean
Oh! In that case I totally misunderstood.

