cyclone VS json

Wow, thanks a lot! I hit a snag running cyclone's repl on a M1 Mac, but found the fix here: https://github.com/justinethier/cyclone/issues/464

When developing Cyclone Scheme I discovered the latest R7RS Scheme language specification requires that several procedures handle circular lists.

Cyclone Scheme transpiles to C and can run in the browser using WASM.

Over the years various solutions have been developed to meet this requirement such as trampolines, goto's, compiler optimizations, etc. One of the most unusual was proposed by Henry Baker in his paper CONS Should Not CONS Its Arguments, Part II: Cheney on the M.T.A. (PDF).

And its successor, Cyclone, began in 2014, and is actively developed.

Gambit, and consequently Gerbil, are not very mature and still need a bit more of a environment. Stklos could also be interesting, as well as Cyclone.

View on GitHub

https://github.com/BurntSushi/rebar#summary-of-search-time-b...

Further, Go refusing to have macros means that many libraries use reflection instead, which often makes those parts of the Go program perform no better than Python and in some cases worse. Rust can just generate all of that at compile time with macros, and optimize them with LLVM like any other code. Some Go libraries go to enormous lengths to reduce reflection overhead, but that's hard to justify for most things, and hard to maintain even once done. The legendary https://github.com/segmentio/encoding seems to be abandoned now and progress on Go JSON in general seems to have died with https://github.com/go-json-experiment/json .

Many people claiming their projects are IO-bound are just assuming that's the case because most of the time is spent in their input reader. If they actually measured they'd see it's not even saturating a 100Mbps link, let alone 1-100Gbps, so by definition it is not IO-bound. Even if they didn't need more throughput than that, they still could have put those cycles to better use or at worst saved energy. Isn't that what people like to say about Go vs Python, that Go saves energy? Sure, but it still burns a lot more energy than it would if it had macros.

Rust can use state-of-the-art memory allocators like mimalloc, while Go is still stuck on an old fork of tcmalloc, and not just tcmalloc in its original C, but transpiled to Go so it optimizes much less than LLVM would optimize it. (Many people benchmarking them forget to even try substitute allocators in Rust, so they're actually underestimating just how much faster Rust is)

Finally, even Go Generics have failed to improve performance, and in many cases can make it unimaginably worse through -- I kid you not -- global lock contention hidden behind innocent type assertion syntax: https://planetscale.com/blog/generics-can-make-your-go-code-...

It's not even close. There are many reasons Go is a lot slower than Rust and many of them are likely to remain forever. Most of them have not seen meaningful progress in a decade or more. The GC has improved, which is great, but that's not even a factor on the Rust side.

Add https://github.com/go-json-experiment/json