Re: [q-lang-users] Pure

[Libor S. <li...@gm...>]

Albert,

It is great to hear about your progress!

I suspect the answer to beating even more languages lies in making your 
matcher as fast as possible, so that it can approach the speed of a fixed
function call that most other languages use.

You probably know a lot more about this but if I was implementing Pure I would
start by converting all operators/functors/constructors to the same internal
representation, such as *(X,Y) instead of X*Y and then have a very efficient
indexing scheme (hashing?) for locating the LHS of the next equation to invoke. 
In this example, I know I only need to look for functor "*" with two arguments.

I have installed Ubuntu 4.08, which was, unexpectedly, a pain in the neck.
It comes with an old version of LLVM available and that installed easily.
Next I will have a go at a manual installation of LLVM 2.2.

Regards, Libor

On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 04:22:22 +0100, Albert Graef <Dr....@t-...> wrote:

> Hi friends,
>
> well, it was quite a bit more work than I expected, but it finally
> works! :) And I already have the Pure->C interface, exceptions
> (catch/throw) and a considerable part of the system module working
> (basic I/O, printf/scanf, glob, regex). Nicely enough, I can write most
> of the wrappers in Pure now.
>
> BTW, the present version is some 30-40 times faster than Q on naive fib,
> IIRC. I was hoping for more, but it's already 7 times faster than Python
> 2.4 on the recursive benchmark from the shootout, and it certainly makes
> Hugs look very bad; MZ Scheme is still a bit faster, though. So I guess
> it's fast enough -- and there's no doubt that the generated code can
> still be improved. ;-)
>
> Still working on a few examples, too tired to do a prerelease tonight.
> Maybe tomorrow. For the time being, get LLVM 2.2 up and running on your
> machines, you'll need it. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Albert