EDIT: unfortunately LuaJIT was taken out of the comparison in the link below.
This comparison of programming languages shows that LuaJIT has an over tenfold improvement over the normal Lua implementation.
Why is the change so big? Is there something specific about Lua that makes it benefit a lot from JIT compilation?
Python is dynamically typed and compiled to bytecode as well, so why doesn't PyPy (that has JIT now, I believe) show such a large jump in performance?
Mike Pall has talked about this in a few places:
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lang.lua.general/58908
http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/3851
http://www.reddit.com/user/mikemike
As with every performant system, the answer in the end comes down to two things: algorithms and engineering. LuaJIT uses advanced compilation techniques, and it also has a very finely engineered implementation. For example, when the fancy compilation techniques can't handle a piece of code, LuaJIT falls back to an very fast interpreter written in x86 assembly.
LuaJIT gets double points on the engineering aspect, because not only is LuaJIT itself well-engineered, but the Lua language itself has a simpler and more coherent design than Python and JavaScript. This makes it (marginally) easier for an implementation to provide consistently good performance.
Related
I would like to provide a very simple scripting interface for a program I'm working on. My program would expose some functions that could be called from the script. I don't need much, maybe just variables, if/else, and loops. The two most popular languages seem to be lua, and python. I really do not like lua from my days of writing World of Warcraft plugins and both seem a lot more complicated than I need. What other languages are available?
Try the Ring programming language (http://ring-lang.net)
The compiler + The Virtual Machine are 15,000 lines of C code
The Ring can be embedded in C/C++ projects, extended using C/C++ code and/or used as standalone language.
The language is simple, trying to be natural, encourage organization and comes with transparent implementation. It comes with compact syntax and a group of features that enable the programmer to create natural interfaces and declarative domain-specific languages in a fraction of time. It is very small, fast and comes with smart garbage collector that puts the memory under the programmer control. It supports many programming paradigms, comes with useful and practical libraries. The language is designed for productivity and developing high quality solutions that can scale.
Learn about embedding the language from
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Ring/Lessons/Embedding_Ring_Interpreter_in_C/C%2B%2B_Programs
I usually use F# for writing numerical algorithms. Functional programming constructs in F# helps to express algorithms in a very natural way. I often end up with a succinct and understandable implementation, and may be able to parallelize it quite fast if there is a chance of parallelism.
I wonder there is a way to compile F# programs down to FPGA. In this way, I can still use F# to avoid boilerplate codes in FPGA programming, and make use of high performance computing in FPGA. Is this possible to do so? If yes, could you provide some hints for me to start with?
I've read about (but never used) Avalda's F# to FPGA conversion, but their site is currently returning a completely blank page. I don't know if that's just temporary of if it means they've gone belly-up.
F# should be ideal for this task because it is derived from the ML family of languages that were bred for metaprogramming. However, I am not aware of any work in this area (although I have had the idea of working on it myself).
I would focus on writing a compiler in F# that compiled a DSL to an FPGA, rather than trying to compile general F# code.
Here's a list for HLS tools using C. My experience with one of them in 2006 was not favourable but I expect them to be much better today.
Regarding F#, I doubt this will exist any time soon.
I'm doing some small projects which involve having different syntaxes for something, however sometimes these syntaxes are so easy that using a parser generator might be overkill.
Now, when should I use a hand-made parser, and when should I use a parser generator?
Thanks,
William van Doorn
There is no hard-and-fast answer, other than "use whatever is easiest for the particular situation".
My experience is that parsers tend to get more complicated over their lifetimes, so using a parser generator up front usually pays off. Even if the language doesn't get more complicated, using a generator forces you to create a formal specification of the syntax, which is itself valuable.
The downsides are that other programmers may not know how to use the generator, so it makes it difficult for others to help out, and it makes your project dependent on that generator.
It's worth coding the parser by hand if, and only if, you're super-keen to have it be extremely fast even on a machine of very modest speed. For example, in this article on the history of Turbo Pascal from before it got its name, you can see how and why the prototype impressed the small (then Danish) firm "Borland" to hire the prototype's author (Anders Hejlsberg), fully develop the compiler, and launch it as its main product, and I quote...:
with no great expectations I hit the
compile key - AND THEN I WAS
COMPLETELY FLOORED! My test program,
that took minutes to compile and link
using Digital Research’s Pascal MT+,
was compiled and running before I
could blink an eye! That was a great
WOW moment!
Turbo Pascal's amazing compile speed -- coming first and foremost from a carefully hand-coded and highly tuned recursive descent parser coded in assembly language -- allowed it to use a very different strategy from most compilers: no separate compilation pass generating object files and libraries, and then a linker to put them together, rather, Turbo Pascal 1.0 was a single-pass compiler that directly turned source code into a single executable binary.
I remember just the same amazing experience on the tiny personal computers of that era (when a Z80, 64K or RAM, and two floppies was a lot;-) -- Turbo Pascal, with its amazing parser and the IDE and everything else, fit comfortably in memory together with a substantial program in both source and compiled form -- no floppies were needed, which meant many orders of magnitude of difference in program turnaround time.
If Hejlsberg had stuck to what was already the traditional wisdom at the time -- always use parser generators -- Turbo Pascal would probably never have emerged as a commercial product, and definitely not achieved the dominance in the Pascal world it enjoyed for years.
Of course, on a typical PC of today, such extreme parsing speed would not be needed for most compilers. Possible exceptions include compilers that must run seamlessly as part of an "interpreter-like" environment (the simple compilers for languages such as Perl and Python are typically hand-coded, to substantial extents, for that reason -- that was an implementation choice that made them viable in the '90s, although today it's not clear it's still needed), or compilers that run on very limited hardware resources, such as smartphones or low-end netbooks.
In the vast majority of cases in which you'll be writing a compiler, none of these performance considerations probably apply, and you'll be happier with a parser generator.
Your question title suggests that using a grammar is optional. It really isn't - even if I was going to implement a tiny language, I'd sketch out a grammar on a single sheet of paper.
As for when to use parser generators, this is really personal preference. Many people believe in hand-writing recursive descent parsers, rather than using the table-driven approach, for example. The important thing is to be comfortable in understanding the capabilities of the generator.
And don't be thinking that using parser generators is somehow the more professional, or even the easier approach. Bjarne Stroustrup when writing the first C++ compiler intended to use recursive descent, but got talked out of it by some keen colleagues at Bell Labs, much to his eventual chagrin. See section 3.3.2 of The Design and Evolution of C++ for more details.
Another thread had this quote
Erlang VM BEAM and HiPE is written mostly in C.
Linked-in drivers are written mostly in C. (They are plugged to VM
and serves communication with outside
world.)
I've read some opinions that Ada's strong typing, modularity, run-time checking, parallel processing etc. etc. are better than that of C.
Would Erlang compiled using Ada be noticably better or worse than the Erlang made with C?
Just a hypothetical Q.
Normally I'd throw a bunch of weasel-words at you on a topic like this, but it turns out this exact question has been studied (it's a .doc file. Sorry).
Rational had a compiler with a large amount of code in both languages, and a large amount of data compiled over several years on bug rates, fix times, etc. Out of curiosity, one of their engineers crunched the numbers.
The answer was "Development Costs of C Exceed Those of Ada". If you read past the summary title, you'd see that they figured writing the same code in Ada cost them about half what writing it in C cost.
I know that everyone reading this is anxious to poke holes in that conclusion. I was too. But they looked at darn near every angle I could think of in the report.
"Better" in what way? Better as in faster? Better as in less bugs? Better as in more portable? Better as in more readable? Better as in more extensible?
For any suitable definition of "better" arguments can be made either way. However, it is just about sacred writ that no compiled language is more portable than C. Thus, if one of your goals is to make your application highly portable, C is an excellent choice.
More people understand C than Ada. Writing erlang extensions might be much harder if it was written in Ada, simply because fewer people are conversant with the language.
C code can be highly performant, but I am aware of no comparisons between C and Ada w/r to compiler optimizations.
Ada's type checking might be useful, or it could be a real problem. One presumes that a VM does it's own type checking on the pieces that matter to it. The overhead of RTTC in Ada could impose a completely unnecessary burden.
Perhaps, but what language was your Ada compiler written in? Ada? What about the compiler that write your FIRST Ada compiler?
At some point when you are building software, formal semantics and software processes are much more important than what language something was coded in.
Is it possible that Microsoft will be able to make F# programs, either at VM execution time, or more likely at compile time, detect that a program was built with a functional language and automatically parallelize it better?
Right now I believe there is no such effort to try and execute a program that was built as single threaded program as a multi threaded program automatically.
That is to say, the developer would code a single threaded program. And the compiler would spit out a compiled program that is multi-threaded complete with mutexes and synchronization where needed.
Would these optimizations be visible in task manager in the process thread count, or would it be lower level than that?
I think this is unlikely in the near future. And if it does happen, I think it would be more likely at the IL level (assembly rewriting) rather than language level (e.g. something specific to F#/compiler). It's an interesting question, and I expect that some fine minds have been looking at this and will continue to look at this for a while, but in the near-term, I think the focus will be on making it easier for humans to direct the threading/parallelization of programs, rather than just having it all happen as if by magic.
(Language features like F# async workflows, and libraries like the task-parallel library and others, are good examples of near-term progress here; they can do most of the heavy lifting for you, especially when your program is more declarative than imperative, but they still require the programmer to opt-in, do analysis for correctness/meaningfulness, and probably make slight alterations to the structure of the code to make it all work.)
Anyway, that's all speculation; who can say what the future will bring? I look forward to finding out (and hopefully making some of it happen). :)
Being that F# is derived from Ocaml and Ocaml compilers can optimize your programs far better than other compilers, it probably could be done.
I don't believe it is possible to autovectorize code in a generally-useful way and the functional programming facet of F# is essentially irrelevant in this context.
The hardest problem is not detecting when you can perform subcomputations in parallel, it is determining when that will not degrade performance, i.e. when the subtasks will take sufficiently long to compute that it is worth taking the performance hit of a parallel spawn.
We have researched this in detail in the context of scientific computing and we have adopted a hybrid approach in our F# for Numerics library. Our parallel algorithms, built upon Microsoft's Task Parallel Library, require an additional parameter that is a function giving the estimated computational complexity of a subtask. This allows our implementation to avoid excessive subdivision and ensure optimal performance. Moreover, this solution is ideal for the F# programming language because the function parameter describing the complexity is typically an anonymous first-class function.
Cheers,
Jon Harrop.
I think the question misses the point of the .NET architecture-- F#, C# and VB (etc.) all get compiled to IL, which then gets compiled to machine code via the JIT compiler. The fact that a program was written in a functional language isn't relevant-- if there are optimizations (like tail recursion, etc.) available to the JIT compiler from the IL, the compiler should take advantage of it.
Naturally, this doesn't mean that writing functional code is irrelevant-- obviously, there are ways to write IL which will parallelize better-- but many of these techniques could be used in any .NET language.
So, there's no need to flag the IL as coming from F# in order to examine it for potential parallelism, nor would such a thing be desirable.
There's active research for autoparallelization and auto vectorization for a variety of languages. And one could hope (since I really like F#) that they would concive a way to determine if a "pure" side-effect free subset was used and then parallelize that.
Also since Simon Peyton-Jones the father of Haskell is working at Microsoft I have a hard time not beliving there's some fantastic stuff comming.
It's possible but unlikely. Microsoft spends most of it's time supporting and implementing features requested by their biggest clients. That usually means C#, VB.Net, and C++ (not necessarily in that order). F# doesn't seem like it's high on the list of priorities.
Microsoft is currently developing 2 avenues for parallelisation of code: PLINQ (Pararllel Linq, which owes much to functional languages) and the Task Parallel Library (TPL) which was originally part of Robotics Studio. A beta of PLINQ is available here.
I would put my money on PLINQ becoming the norm for auto-parallelisation of .NET code.