Gambit-list Août 2016

gambit-list@iro.umontreal.ca

13 participants
15 discussions

Gambit versus Python+GMP: Timing for Chudnovskys' algorithm for pi
by Bradley Lucier 07 Avr '22

07 Avr '22

Bakul Shah wrote a particularly elegant Scheme program for Chudnovskys' algorithm for pi based on the Common Lisp program here: https://bitbucket.org/tarballs_are_good/numericl/src/5fe8fe7089f48ab1c8a388… Nick Craig-Wood wrote a Python program using the GMP multiprecision library that appears to use exactly the same algorithm here: http://www.craig-wood.com/nick/articles/pi-chudnovsky/ I modified both programs a bit and include them here. They time the calculation of $10^n$ digits of pi for $n=1,2,3,4,5,6,7$. The results are heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> !py python pi_chudnovsky_bs_gmpy.py 31415926535897932384626433832795028841971693993751058209749445923078164062862089986280348253421170679 ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10, 'time', 1.0967254638671875e-05) ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 100, 'time', 3.0040740966796875e-05) Last 5 digits 70679 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 1000, 'time', 0.00025582313537597656) Last 5 digits 01989 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10000, 'time', 0.00386810302734375) Last 5 digits 75678 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 100000, 'time', 0.0834801197052002) Last 5 digits 24646 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 1000000, 'time', 1.655979871749878) Last 5 digits 58151 OK ('chudnovsky_gmpy_mpz_bs: digits', 10000000, 'time', 30.67442488670349) Last 5 digits 55897 OK heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gsi chud1.scm Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10, CPU time: 0.. Last 5 digits 26535. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 100, CPU time: 0.. Last 5 digits 70679. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 1000, CPU time: .004. Last 5 digits 1989. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10000, CPU time: .028. Last 5 digits 75678. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 100000, CPU time: .472. Last 5 digits 24646. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 1000000, CPU time: 6.448. Last 5 digits 58151. Chudnovsky's algorithm using binary splitting in Gambit Scheme: digits 10000000, CPU time: 98.612. Last 5 digits 55897. So it appears that for this algorithm applied to large integers, GMP's bignum routines are about 3-4 times as fast as Gambit's bignum routines. Not so bad. For smaller bignums, GMP has a bigger advantage. The C program gmp-chudnovsky.c includes certain optimizations to this basic algorithm: http://gmplib.org/pi-with-gmp.html ftp://ftp.gmplib.org/pub/misc/gmp-chudnovsky.c On my machine, compiled with gcc -O3 -march=native -o gmp-chudnovsky gmp-chudnovsky.c -lgmp -lm the CPU times for 1,000,000 and 10,000,000 digits are 1.064 and 18.200 seconds, respectively. This is with a somewhat older machine model name : Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8200 @ 2.33GHz running Ubuntu 13.04 with heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gcc -v Using built-in specs. COLLECT_GCC=gcc COLLECT_LTO_WRAPPER=/usr/lib/gcc/x86_64-linux-gnu/4.7/lto-wrapper Target: x86_64-linux-gnu Configured with: ../src/configure -v --with-pkgversion='Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1' --with-bugurl=file:///usr/share/doc/gcc-4.7/README.Bugs --enable-languages=c,c++,go,fortran,objc,obj-c++ --prefix=/usr --program-suffix=-4.7 --enable-shared --enable-linker-build-id --libexecdir=/usr/lib --without-included-gettext --enable-threads=posix --with-gxx-include-dir=/usr/include/c++/4.7 --libdir=/usr/lib --enable-nls --with-sysroot=/ --enable-clocale=gnu --enable-libstdcxx-debug --enable-libstdcxx-time=yes --enable-gnu-unique-object --enable-plugin --with-system-zlib --enable-objc-gc --with-cloog --enable-cloog-backend=ppl --disable-cloog-version-check --disable-ppl-version-check --enable-multiarch --disable-werror --with-arch-32=i686 --with-abi=m64 --with-multilib-list=m32,m64,mx32 --with-tune=generic --enable-checking=release --build=x86_64-linux-gnu --host=x86_64-linux-gnu --target=x86_64-linux-gnu Thread model: posix gcc version 4.7.3 (Ubuntu/Linaro 4.7.3-1ubuntu1) heine:~/programs/gambiteer/gambit> gsi -v v4.6.9 20130607151908 x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu "./configure '--enable-single-host' '--enable-multiple-versions' '--enable-shared'" and the Ubuntu-provided GMP 5.0.5. (I'm sure the GMP folks have a better way to build GMP on my machine than the "generic" 64-bit version provided by Ubuntu.) Brad

7 18

Re: [gambit-list] JavaScript backend
by Marc Feeley 13 Fév '17

13 Fév '17

First of all, this change is for the universal backend. It is more of a temporary kludge to experiment with dynamically loading files generated by the universal backend. Here’s how it works… At the end of the link file, the Gambit linker generates a table of the Scheme modules required by the program. The table is passed as a parameter to the g_module_registry_init function of the Gambit runtime system. For example, the link command: gsc -link -l lib/_gambit.js a.js b.js will generate at the end of the link file “b_.js”: g_module_registry_init([new G_ModLinkInfo("_gambit",0), new G_ModLinkInfo("a",1), new G_ModLinkInfo("b",2)]); At then end of a file generated for the compilation of a module there is a call to a runtime system function that registers the module in the module registry. For example, when “a.scm” is compiled with the command “gsc -target js -c a.scm”, the file “a.js” generated ends with: g_module_register([g_make_interned_symbol("a"),g_bb1__20_a,1,null,false]); The parameter of g_module_register is a “module descriptor” giving information on the module: name, main function (g_bb1__20_a), preload flag (1), module meta information (null), and a dummy field (false) that is only interesting for the C backend. So when the files of generated code are loaded (incrementally) by the JS VM, g_module_register accumulates the modules in a table. When all the modules required by the program have beed loaded (in the example, _gambit, a and b) the function g_module_register will call the main function of the first module. This will run the Scheme code at the toplevel of the first module. The first module contains a loop, in Scheme, that iterates over the module registry and calls the main function of each of the remaining modules in the registry (this information is available in Scheme in the global variable ##program-descr). Specifically, the first module is the Gambit universal library (lib/_univlib.scm), which ends with a call to ##load-vm (a procedure defined in lib/_kernel.scm that runs each module other than the first). What my most recent change does is extend g_module_register so that any subsequent module that is loaded by the JS VM causes its immediate execution by calling the module's main function. In the C backend the mechanism is slightly different (and more flexible): the ##load-object-file procedure of the Gambit runtime library constructs a vector of module descriptors and this vector is passed to ##register-module-descrs-and-load! (defined in lib/_kernel.scm) which then runs the modules. It is more flexible because the loaded object file can contain more than one module, and also control goes through Scheme before the module is executed. Marc > On Jan 3, 2016, at 2:54 AM, Adam <adam.mlmb(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > Marc, > > Wait, what's the point? > > That is effectively C modules' default behavior isn't it? (even if it's the runtime or linker-generated code that actually does the actual run command.) > > So this way you create symmetrical behavior but the actual run command is in the module file itself rather than in runtime/linker - > > Is there any disadvantage.. could be, no, like, I need more modules loaded at the same time and with this model you introduced now, the global namespace in JS files is evaluated at load time so could cause a problem? > > > 2016-01-03 14:10 GMT+08:00 Marc Feeley <feeley(a)iro.umontreal.ca>: > I’ve just pushed a small change to the module registration method. Now, loading the generated .js file will run that file. > > Marc > > > On Jan 2, 2016, at 11:39 PM, Blake McBride <blake(a)mcbride.name> wrote: > > > > Yes, and I use jQuery get and html methods to load the html part. > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 8:43 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley(a)iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > That’s an interesting app! > > > > As I said, it shouldn’t be hard to do. In your app, how do you load new JS code? Are you using jQuery and the getScript method? > > > > Marc > > > > > On Jan 2, 2016, at 8:42 PM, Blake McBride <blake(a)mcbride.name> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Marc, > > > > > > Thanks for the reply. > > > > > > I started development of a Web based business application in 2006. The app is in production use. The front-end is about 450 screens written in Flash. The back-end is written in Java (over 9,000 classes) on top of an SQL database with 250 tables accessed through Hibernate. The front-end and back-end communicate through SOAP web services. > > > > > > Since Flash is now dead, I need to re-write at least parts of the front-end in JS to support tablets and phones at least. I have front-end JS code that communicates with the back-end SOAP Web services so I theoretically wouldn't need to touch the back-end. > > > > > > I have a preference to utilize scheme if I can, but the back-end is already written and works. It doesn't make sense to mess with it given the investment. > > > > > > The problems I had with Gambit (as well as many other systems) is as follows: > > > > > > Once a user logs in, my app has a consistent visual / UI framework. Beyond this framework, there are 450 different screens that appear within the framework (like in one of the div's). > > > > > > A. I cannot load all 450 screen at system startup. I must lazy load them as they are called up. > > > > > > B. The initial UI framework code should contain all of the Gambit machinery and libraries so that each of the 450 screens can be small, light-weight, compiled separately yet have full access to the entire Gambit facility. > > > > > > With respect, my investigation into Gambit as a possible solution in the past led me to the conclusions at that time it was not possible to produce separately compiled modules that leveraged off of a single main module for the Gambit machinery and libraries. > > > > > > I suppose some time has passed and I wanted to see if the situation has changed. I can only use Gambit if: > > > > > > 1. I can compile and load each screen separately > > > > > > 2. I only have to have one copy of the Gambit machinery and library so that the separate screens are small. > > > > > > Thank you. > > > > > > Blake > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jan 2, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Marc Feeley <feeley(a)iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > > asmjs is cool and Gambit has already been compiled to it thanks to emscripten (see “Gambit in the browser”: http://feeley.github.io/gambit-in-the-browser/). The performance is not bad, perhaps 10x to 20x slower than when Gambit is compiled by gcc to native code. The main problem is the size of the JS that is generated when compiling Gambit-C with emscripten to JS. The gsi interpreter yields roughly 10 MB of asmjs code. > > > > > > As far as code size is concerned, a better solution is to use Gambit's JS backend with the Gambit library. The code generated is roughly half the size when minimized (and it could be even less if some thought went into how identifiers are encoded). > > > > > > Even more savings can be had by doing away with the default Gambit library and writing a custom library specialized for the application. Gambit’s library has lots of functionality that is not normally needed by typical applications. For example, the predefined map procedure can handle an arbitrary number of list parameters. If the application only uses the single list version, then this definition would be sufficient: > > > > > > (define (map f lst) > > > (if (pair? lst) > > > (cons (f (car lst)) (map f (cdr lst))) > > > ‘())) > > > > > > That 4 line version is 1/20th the size of the map defined in the Gambit library (which handles multiple lists, has type checking, precise error messages, same list length checking and is safe for multithreading). > > > > > > So perhaps what’s needed for Gambit to be more successful for web dev is the creation of such a “slim” library for Gambit to replace the default feature-full library. Gambit’s “tree shaker” would also help to eliminate the unused procedures of the slim library (unfortunately this only works for “whole program” compilation, so separate compilation would only be used for the development phase). > > > > > > Anyway, if this interests you please let me know. > > > > > > Marc > > > > > > > On Jan 1, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Blake McBride <blake(a)mcbride.name> wrote: > > > > > > > > Just some opinions. > > > > > > > > asmjs.org defines a portable subset that allows JS platforms to compile into very fast code. Targeting that subset, and within their spec, is probably a good idea. > > > > > > > > JS has, and is becoming increasingly, a very, very important platform. With ajax and rest services, code increasingly independent from the back-end is being developed. So, in a very important sense, JS has become its own platform, just like X86, and X86_64, along with Linux, Windows, Mac, etc. > > > > > > > > Many apps consist of two major parts: the back-end processing, and the front-end human interface. While one can write the back-end processing in any of dozens of languages targeting X86 or a VM, and the OS, there is really only one target for the other half - the human interface - and that is JS. > > > > > > > > While many languages are now targeting the JS platform (I am using the word "platform" to mean X86, X86_64, either, plus the OS) including, believe it or not, Smalltalk, there are few that can, IMO, be used in a real world application for several reasons. But, these issues will likely be resolved soon. > > > > > > > > With respect, Gambit, at least in the past, was in many ways another toy solution - one with a functioning "Hello world" application but missing important features that make it usable in a real-world situation. I would love to be a part of that solution, but alas, life doesn't offer me that level of freedom. I am only capable of using a system that is reportedly working, reporting bugs, making small adjustments, and providing feedback. Regardless of my attitude, preferences, and intentions, I cannot provide more. > > > > > > > > Look at node (JS for the back-end) and its vastly increasing popularity. Since developers are being forced to use JS on the front-end, it's bleeding over to the back-end. I think solutions that take JS seriously at this stage will prosper greatly. > > > > > > > > Now, having said all that, I would love to see Gambit target JS as a high-priority, first-class target. If that were the case, I would be happy to contribute what I stated above. > > > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > > > Blake McBride > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Gambit-list mailing list > > > > Gambit-list(a)iro.umontreal.ca > > > > https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Gambit-list mailing list > Gambit-list(a)iro.umontreal.ca > https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list >

2 1

look at that!
by goetter 28 Aoû '16

28 Aoû '16

Hello friend, Look at that stuff! It's just amazing, you are gonna love it, I swear! Take a look here <http://hystofutry.consciousinnovations.com/aewsch> Later, goetter

1 0

{Spam?} Re: nice surprise
by goetter 28 Aoû '16

28 Aoû '16

Hey friend, There is something interesting I wanted to tell you, I was really surprised, just take a look <http://pandovofro.tyler-sorenson.com/aefoy> goetter

1 0

Soft keyboard on Not Emacs
by John Velman 27 Aoû '16

27 Aoû '16

I must be missing something obvious, but I can't open the soft keyboard in Not Emacs. Other than that, I like it. :-) Of course for serious work I would crank up the Bluetooth keyboard, but I was trying to do a simple get acquainted run. (And trying to learn To use Emacs for the hundredth time. I think on the iPad I might actually use it.) Thanks, John Velman Sent from my iPad

2 2

Re: [gambit-list] Soft keyboard on Not Emacs
by John Velman 26 Aoû '16

26 Aoû '16

Thanks! Sent from my iPad > On Aug 26, 2016, at 4:30 AM, Marc Feeley <feeley(a)iro.umontreal.ca> wrote: > > The soft keyboard is not available if your iPad is connected to a Bluetooth keyboard. Also, if you tap the “hide keyboard” key on the soft keyboard, the soft keyboard will disappear. You can show the soft keyboard by using the “reset keyboard” entry in the “Options” menu. > > I hope you will enjoy using Not Emacs and, if you feel it is lacking in some respect, that you will contribute to it (the source code is in Gambit’s contrib/GambitREPL directory). > > Marc > > >> On Aug 26, 2016, at 12:17 AM, John Velman <velman(a)me.com> wrote: >> >> I must be missing something obvious, but I can't open the soft keyboard in Not Emacs. >> >> Other than that, I like it. :-) >> >> Of course for serious work I would crank up the Bluetooth keyboard, but I was trying to do a simple get acquainted run. (And trying to learn To use Emacs for the hundredth time. I think on the iPad I might actually use it.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> John Velman >> >> Sent from my iPad >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gambit-list mailing list >> Gambit-list(a)iro.umontreal.ca >> https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list > > _______________________________________________ > Gambit-list mailing list > Gambit-list(a)iro.umontreal.ca > https://webmail.iro.umontreal.ca/mailman/listinfo/gambit-list

1 0

LambdaNative brings functional programming to IoT | JavaWorld
by Bradley Lucier 17 Aoû '16

17 Aoû '16

http://www.javaworld.com/article/3041885/application-development/lambdanati… I don’t remember seeing this on the list, and it’s moderately interesting.

1 0

Not Emacs
by Pandit, Sagar 16 Aoû '16

16 Aoû '16

Hello I just now installed Not Emacs on iPad Pro. I have a question. How does one access iCloud files? Thanks Sagar Sent from my iPad

2 1

Questions & documentation on the universal backend
by Jon Woodring 14 Aoû '16

14 Aoû '16

Is there any documentation on compiling to javascript, or is it mostly in the mailing list archives? After some scrounging, I was finally able to figure out how to compile and get a simple (println (fib 5)) working: $ cd gambit/lib $ gsc -:~~bin=../bin,~~lib=../lib,~~include=../include -f -target js -prelude "(##include \"header.scm\")" -o _gambit.js ../lib/_univlib.scm $ gsc -warnings -target js code.scm $ gsc -warnings -link -l _gambit.js code.js $ cat code_.js _gambit.js code.js > p.js $ node p.js 1) Is that mostly correct? I take it it is still a WIP because I couldn't find documentation. 2) What if I want to use the Python backend? I tried swapping in all of the targets with -target python but then get this error: $ python2 p.py Traceback (most recent call last): File "p.py", line 26310, in <module> g_bb1_serial_2d_number_2d__3e_object.name = g_cst1727___gambit NameError: global name 'g_cst1727___gambit' is not defined 3) Is there a concise example of #inline-host-expression (-statement & -declaration) to be able to have scheme call javascript and vice versa? Same with python? I'm not sure what is correct from my reading of the mailing archive. Thanks, -Jon

3 8

Tweak possible to "emulate" 64bit features on a 32bit architecture?
by Adam 07 Aoû '16

07 Aoû '16

Dear Marc, Gambit on 32bit architectures suffer badly of the limitations on maximum string, vector and also fixnum sizes. For some uses, this is more than enough as reason to disqualify 32bit architecture use altogether. A thought struck me the other day - the reason for those low limits on 32bit architectures, is that Gambit delivers the native integer/pointer size of the underlying architecture, and that leads to those limitations because of how Gambit's type system is built. You could say that the overarching reason is speed. My thought is, if a given user would like to take the speed argument out of the equation, Would it be possible for you to easily provide a "forced 64bit word" compilation mode for Gambit, hence lifting the string, vector and fixnum size limits far beyond their current ones of 4M-chars, 16MB u8vector, and is it 2^29 as max fixnum value. (The string and u8vector limits are the central concerns really. The effect on fixnum would be higher speed of computation in the 2^29..2^61 interval at the cost of slightly lower speed in the 0..2^29 interval.) This would only be relevant to run on some fairly standard architecture and platform. If the tweak would be possible, would Gambit's total live objects be able to amount to 2GB or 4GB, or how much? Thanks!

3 4

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

Gambit-list Août 2016