If you don't mind crappy graphics with numbers pulled out of the air https://imgur.com/a/9r0aJzd The idea is trading a slower development speed for some time, to get more speed and features in the long run.
Perhaps the change in the slope in BC is too much, and the current speed of CS is greater than the imaginary speed of a version of BC in an universe where BC didn't happen. I hope the crappy graphic in Paintbrush is enough to make it clear that the numbers are pulled out of the air. Anyway, one of the hard fact of the blog post submitted here is that in most cases the current version of CS is faster than the current version of BC.
The very fact that they did this tells us a lot about Racket's community “achievements”!
Did you know Idris also runs on Chez? Does that also say a lot about Edwin Brady's achievements?
This is pure nonsense.
This is just a blatant misunderstanding of what Racket on Chez is trying to do, and a very limited understanding of what “optimization” means for something as complex as a compiler/interpreter. The point of the Chez backend is to improve maintainability and portability, not to increase speed [1]. Racket used to have a custom Scheme interpreter with a lot of custom C that was difficult to work with, so instead a lot of that code was ported to Chez - easier for everyone, especially Racket devs, even if it might take a while to smooth out some of the (very modest) performance hits.
And since you’re obviously totally ignorant as to why Racket decided to do all this work, it makes it hard to take your rant seriously.
[1] https://www.cs.utah.edu/plt/publications/icfp19-fddkmstz.pdf