4 ms·

If you like this, you might like Lisp interpreter written in assembly in a single file. It is one of the best commented code ever written imo. https://github.c

If you like this, you might like Lisp interpreter written in assembly in a single file. It is one of the best commented code ever written imo. https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp

sparkie 9y ago
Another small lisp implementation: http://piumarta.com/software/lysp/ http://piumarta.com/software/lysp/ Also, another, more interesting Lisp by the same author: (http://piumarta.com/software/maru/ http://piumarta.com/software/maru/). Maru is basically a lisp where some of the core functions like eval and apply are extensible from user code. There's basically a global map of types to evaluators and applicators, with some functions for you to register your own types and get the evaluation behavior you want.
fasquoika 9y ago
It seems like arpilisp is inspired by jonesforth[0]. Although not directly stated, the style is similar and the acknowledgements mentions Richard Jones. Anyone interested in implementing simple programming languages might also want to take a look at jonesforth. [0]: https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth
- marcpaq 9y ago
  Arpilisp author here. Yes, jonesforth definitely inspired and influenced me; that's why Jones is first in the Acknowledgements section. If you're curious, I keep a list of single-file implementations of programming languages (including jonesforth): https://github.com/marcpaq/b1fipl https://github.com/marcpaq/b1fipl
_sdegutis 9y ago
Since this is written in assembly is it much faster than a C version since this one can manage its own stack frames and stack variables and such? I always imagined that’s the case and that a lisp implemented fully in assembly would be the trick to a super fast lisp that can complete with Go.
- ci5er 9y ago
  LISP was created a long time ago. Assembly was the weapon of choice. Thinking Machines, Symbolics and Macsyma might already say: We did that. But, uh, no.
  - klmr 9y ago
    The first LISP implementation was famously done in machine code, not assembly.
- tom_mellior 9y ago
  An interpreter written in assembly is still an interpreter. Yes, it may have control over stack frames. But so does a compiler, and the code generated by a compiler doesn't incur interpretation overhead. If you want performance, compliation is the way to go. And that's what fast Lisps do.
- marcpaq 9y ago
  Arpilisp author here. If you were to implement the same Lisp in C then compare, then maybe the assembly variant would be faster for the reasons you mention. Or maybe not. Also, I modeled arpilisp after the original Lisp. That's barely a first step, and possibly the wrong first step, for anything non-trivial, including applications requiring a "super fast lisp that can compete with Go." But I didn't write arpilisp for performance. I wrote it to learn and share. Enjoy!
nielsbot 9y ago
Someone once suggested to me the easiest way to "bootstrap the world" is to write a Forth implementation in assembly, and then write your Lisp in Forth.
- z29LiTp5qUC30n 9y ago
  as there is a project aiming to "bootstrap the world" https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/stage0/ https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/stage0/ and they hand wrote a FORTH http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/forth.s http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/f... and a compacting garbage collecting lisp http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/lisp.s http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/l... and their opinion was that it was easier to do the lisp than it was to do the FORTH. Although right now they are trying to improve their C Compiler prototype https://github.com/oriansj/M2-Planet https://github.com/oriansj/M2-Planet before they convert it to assembly

sparkie 9y ago

Another small lisp implementation: http://piumarta.com/software/lysp/ http://piumarta.com/software/lysp/ Also, another, more interesting Lisp by the same author: (http://piumarta.com/software/maru/ http://piumarta.com/software/maru/). Maru is basically a lisp where some of the core functions like eval and apply are extensible from user code. There's basically a global map of types to evaluators and applicators, with some functions for you to register your own types and get the evaluation behavior you want.

fasquoika 9y ago

It seems like arpilisp is inspired by jonesforth[0]. Although not directly stated, the style is similar and the acknowledgements mentions Richard Jones. Anyone interested in implementing simple programming languages might also want to take a look at jonesforth. [0]: https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth https://github.com/nornagon/jonesforth

marcpaq 9y ago
Arpilisp author here. Yes, jonesforth definitely inspired and influenced me; that's why Jones is first in the Acknowledgements section. If you're curious, I keep a list of single-file implementations of programming languages (including jonesforth): https://github.com/marcpaq/b1fipl https://github.com/marcpaq/b1fipl

_sdegutis 9y ago

Since this is written in assembly is it much faster than a C version since this one can manage its own stack frames and stack variables and such? I always imagined that’s the case and that a lisp implemented fully in assembly would be the trick to a super fast lisp that can complete with Go.

ci5er 9y ago
LISP was created a long time ago. Assembly was the weapon of choice. Thinking Machines, Symbolics and Macsyma might already say: We did that. But, uh, no.
- klmr 9y ago
  The first LISP implementation was famously done in machine code, not assembly.
tom_mellior 9y ago
An interpreter written in assembly is still an interpreter. Yes, it may have control over stack frames. But so does a compiler, and the code generated by a compiler doesn't incur interpretation overhead. If you want performance, compliation is the way to go. And that's what fast Lisps do.
marcpaq 9y ago
Arpilisp author here. If you were to implement the same Lisp in C then compare, then maybe the assembly variant would be faster for the reasons you mention. Or maybe not. Also, I modeled arpilisp after the original Lisp. That's barely a first step, and possibly the wrong first step, for anything non-trivial, including applications requiring a "super fast lisp that can compete with Go." But I didn't write arpilisp for performance. I wrote it to learn and share. Enjoy!

nielsbot 9y ago

Someone once suggested to me the easiest way to "bootstrap the world" is to write a Forth implementation in assembly, and then write your Lisp in Forth.

z29LiTp5qUC30n 9y ago
as there is a project aiming to "bootstrap the world" https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/stage0/ https://savannah.nongnu.org/projects/stage0/ and they hand wrote a FORTH http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/forth.s http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/f... and a compacting garbage collecting lisp http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/lisp.s http://git.savannah.nongnu.org/cgit/stage0.git/tree/stage2/l... and their opinion was that it was easier to do the lisp than it was to do the FORTH. Although right now they are trying to improve their C Compiler prototype https://github.com/oriansj/M2-Planet https://github.com/oriansj/M2-Planet before they convert it to assembly