[mruts]

Compiled Racket programs are nowhere near the speed of Rust or Go. Racket's GC is objectively much much worse than the JVM.

Of course you can serve millions of users with Racket, like HN. But the JVM today is much better choice. The JVM's GC is world-class and the number of man-hours put in it is probably many orders of magnitudes more than that of Racket's.

https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...

[dorfsmay]

So execution speed, fair enough.

FWIW, I've been staying away from Clojure because of the JVM. A lot of us are wearing the scars of the JVM battles!

[fiddlerwoaroof]

If you need performance and want to avoid the jvm, there are also lisps like Chez Scheme and various Common Lisp implementations (sbcl, in particular, can produce really well-tuned numerical code).

[hjek]

... which is why Racket-on-Chez[0] is a really exciting development.

[0]: https://blog.racket-lang.org/2018/01/racket-on-chez-status.h...

[igouy]

"Keep in mind that the original goal is not to have a faster Racket, but a better-implemented Racket with acceptable performance."