3 ms·

>The "Wolfram Language" user typically does not write code in FullForm. It's used as an internal representation. I have no clue what you're talking about - it'

>The "Wolfram Language" user typically does not write code in FullForm. It's used as an internal representation. I have no clue what you're talking about - it's an available primitive and I use it all the time. >and not so good at compiling code... Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled.

lispm 3y ago
> I have no clue what you're talking about That's not good. Try again. In Lisp adding two numbers looks like this is source code: (+ 1 2) CL-USER 41 > (+ 1 2) 3 If I quote the expression and evaluate it, the result is (+ 1 2) CL-USER 42 > (quote (+ 1 2)) (+ 1 2) Thus in Lisp the textual representation of code and code as data are the same. Not so in "Wolfram Language": a + b has a FullForm which looks differently. The user does not write ALL of the code in FullForm notation. Source notation a + b FullForm Plus[a, b] Lisp: Source notation (+ a b) FullForm (+ a b) Can you see the difference? > Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. I'd expect that they can. That's a feature since 1962. SBCL for example does AOT compilation by default, always. * (disassemble (lambda (a) (+ a 42))) ; disassembly for (LAMBDA (A)) ; Size: 36 bytes. Origin: #x7006DC83B4 ; (LAMBDA (A)) ; B4: AA0A40F9 LDR R0, [THREAD, #16] ; binding-stack-pointer ; B8: 4A0B00F9 STR R0, [CFP, #16] ; BC: EA030CAA MOV R0, R2 ; C0: 8B0A80D2 MOVZ R1, #84 ; C4: 3CAA80D2 MOVZ TMP, #1361 ; C8: BE6B7CF8 LDR LR, [NULL, TMP] ; SB-KERNEL:TWO-ARG-+ ; CC: DE130091 ADD LR, LR, #4 ; D0: C0031FD6 BR LR ; D4: E00120D4 BRK #15 ; Invalid argument count trap NIL Looks like native ARM64 code to me.
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  > FullForm Plus[a, b] How can I make this any more clear? You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b > I'd expect that they can. Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    If we count everyone's one-weekend project that evaluates (+ 1 2) into 3, then there are probably thousands of Lisps that cannot be compiled. So what?
    - lispm 3y ago
      Then the person should spend another weekend and implement a compiler for it.
  - lispm 3y ago
    > You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b Sure, but it is not Mathematica's InputForm: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html The majority of code is written not in FullForm. In Lisp 100% of the code is written in s-expressions. > Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled. Typical Lisp and Lisp dialects all can be compiled: Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Scheme, Racket, ... Which Lisps can not be compiled?
    - mathisfun123 3y ago
      >Racket Do you really know what you're talking about here? https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html >The raco make command accept filenames for Racket modules to be compiled to bytecode format. That's not a compiler... I don't claim to be an expert on lisp, so further googling I find https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950/2 https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-with... which has some discussion about this and that native backend. Suffice it to say I am not any more confident that being compilable is somehow intrinsic to lisp.
      - lispm 3y ago
        From the Racket documentation: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html "18.7.1.2 CS Compilation Modes The CS implementation of Racket supports several compilation modes: machine code, machine-independent, interpreted, and JIT. Machine code is the primary mode, and the machine-independent mode is the same as for BC." CS is the new implementation of Racket on top of the Chez Scheme runtime. Chez Scheme is known for its excellent machine code compiler. "Machine code is the primary mode" > Do you really know what you're talking about here? Read above.
kazinator 3y ago
> Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. Ahead-of-time compiling has been the principal method in mainstream Lisps going back to the 1960's. The Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual from 1962 describes ahead-of-time compiling. The curious thing is how can you be "100% sure" in making a completely wrong statement, rather than some lower number, like "12% sure".
- mathisfun123 3y ago
  >The curious thing is how can you be "100% sure" in making a completely wrong statement, rather than some lower number, like "12% sure". The reason is very simple and surprisingly straightforward (but requires some understanding of compilers): dynamically typed languages that are amenable to interpreter implementations are very hard to compile AOT. Now note I have since the beginning emphasized AOT - ahead of time - but this does not preclude JITs. But in reality I don't really care about this aspect - it was the other guy who for whatever reason decided to flaunt that clisp can be compiled when comparing it with Mathematica.
  - kazinator 3y ago
    For someone playing with Mathematica, you have a curious intellectual process. To be clear, I'd rather have you doing that than hocking loogies at cars from an overpass.
eadmund 3y ago
> Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. CL-USER> (defun foobar (x) (1+ x)) FOOBAR CL-USER> (disassemble #'foobar) ; disassembly for FOOBAR ; Size: 35 bytes. Origin: #x5365BF44 ; FOOBAR ; 44: 498B4510 MOV RAX, [R13+16] ; thread.binding-stack-pointer ; 48: 488945F8 MOV [RBP-8], RAX ; 4C: BF02000000 MOV EDI, 2 ; 51: 488BD3 MOV RDX, RBX ; 54: FF14251001A052 CALL QWORD PTR [#x52A00110] ; SB-VM::GENERIC-+ ; 5B: 488B5DF0 MOV RBX, [RBP-16] ; 5F: 488BE5 MOV RSP, RBP ; 62: F8 CLC ; 63: 5D POP RBP ; 64: C3 RET ; 65: CC10 INT3 16 ; Invalid argument count trap NIL CL-USER> There you go: #'FOOBAR is AOT-compiled down to four MOVs, a CALL, two MOVs, a CLC, a POP and a RET.

lispm 3y ago

> I have no clue what you're talking about That's not good. Try again. In Lisp adding two numbers looks like this is source code: (+ 1 2) CL-USER 41 > (+ 1 2) 3 If I quote the expression and evaluate it, the result is (+ 1 2) CL-USER 42 > (quote (+ 1 2)) (+ 1 2) Thus in Lisp the textual representation of code and code as data are the same. Not so in "Wolfram Language": a + b has a FullForm which looks differently. The user does not write ALL of the code in FullForm notation. Source notation a + b FullForm Plus[a, b] Lisp: Source notation (+ a b) FullForm (+ a b) Can you see the difference? > Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. I'd expect that they can. That's a feature since 1962. SBCL for example does AOT compilation by default, always. * (disassemble (lambda (a) (+ a 42))) ; disassembly for (LAMBDA (A)) ; Size: 36 bytes. Origin: #x7006DC83B4 ; (LAMBDA (A)) ; B4: AA0A40F9 LDR R0, [THREAD, #16] ; binding-stack-pointer ; B8: 4A0B00F9 STR R0, [CFP, #16] ; BC: EA030CAA MOV R0, R2 ; C0: 8B0A80D2 MOVZ R1, #84 ; C4: 3CAA80D2 MOVZ TMP, #1361 ; C8: BE6B7CF8 LDR LR, [NULL, TMP] ; SB-KERNEL:TWO-ARG-+ ; CC: DE130091 ADD LR, LR, #4 ; D0: C0031FD6 BR LR ; D4: E00120D4 BRK #15 ; Invalid argument count trap NIL Looks like native ARM64 code to me.

mathisfun123 3y ago
> FullForm Plus[a, b] How can I make this any more clear? You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b > I'd expect that they can. Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled.
- kazinator 3y ago
  If we count everyone's one-weekend project that evaluates (+ 1 2) into 3, then there are probably thousands of Lisps that cannot be compiled. So what?
  - lispm 3y ago
    Then the person should spend another weekend and implement a compiler for it.
- lispm 3y ago
  > You are able, in Mathematica, to write Plus[a, b] with your own fingers on your own keyboard and it will be interpreted as the same thing as a+b Sure, but it is not Mathematica's InputForm: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/InputForm.html The majority of code is written not in FullForm. In Lisp 100% of the code is written in s-expressions. > Clisp is not the only lisp - I can name 10 others that cannot be compiled. Typical Lisp and Lisp dialects all can be compiled: Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, ISLisp, Scheme, Racket, ... Which Lisps can not be compiled?
  - mathisfun123 3y ago
    >Racket Do you really know what you're talking about here? https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/raco/make.html >The raco make command accept filenames for Racket modules to be compiled to bytecode format. That's not a compiler... I don't claim to be an expert on lisp, so further googling I find https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-without-native-backends/950/2 https://racket.discourse.group/t/chez-for-architectures-with... which has some discussion about this and that native backend. Suffice it to say I am not any more confident that being compilable is somehow intrinsic to lisp.
    - lispm 3y ago
      From the Racket documentation: https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/compiler.html "18.7.1.2 CS Compilation Modes The CS implementation of Racket supports several compilation modes: machine code, machine-independent, interpreted, and JIT. Machine code is the primary mode, and the machine-independent mode is the same as for BC." CS is the new implementation of Racket on top of the Chez Scheme runtime. Chez Scheme is known for its excellent machine code compiler. "Machine code is the primary mode" > Do you really know what you're talking about here? Read above.

kazinator 3y ago

> Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. Ahead-of-time compiling has been the principal method in mainstream Lisps going back to the 1960's. The Lisp 1.5 Programmer's Manual from 1962 describes ahead-of-time compiling. The curious thing is how can you be "100% sure" in making a completely wrong statement, rather than some lower number, like "12% sure".

mathisfun123 3y ago
>The curious thing is how can you be "100% sure" in making a completely wrong statement, rather than some lower number, like "12% sure". The reason is very simple and surprisingly straightforward (but requires some understanding of compilers): dynamically typed languages that are amenable to interpreter implementations are very hard to compile AOT. Now note I have since the beginning emphasized AOT - ahead of time - but this does not preclude JITs. But in reality I don't really care about this aspect - it was the other guy who for whatever reason decided to flaunt that clisp can be compiled when comparing it with Mathematica.
- kazinator 3y ago
  For someone playing with Mathematica, you have a curious intellectual process. To be clear, I'd rather have you doing that than hocking loogies at cars from an overpass.

eadmund 3y ago

> Lol I am 100% sure that the majority of lisps cannot be aot compiled. CL-USER> (defun foobar (x) (1+ x)) FOOBAR CL-USER> (disassemble #'foobar) ; disassembly for FOOBAR ; Size: 35 bytes. Origin: #x5365BF44 ; FOOBAR ; 44: 498B4510 MOV RAX, [R13+16] ; thread.binding-stack-pointer ; 48: 488945F8 MOV [RBP-8], RAX ; 4C: BF02000000 MOV EDI, 2 ; 51: 488BD3 MOV RDX, RBX ; 54: FF14251001A052 CALL QWORD PTR [#x52A00110] ; SB-VM::GENERIC-+ ; 5B: 488B5DF0 MOV RBX, [RBP-16] ; 5F: 488BE5 MOV RSP, RBP ; 62: F8 CLC ; 63: 5D POP RBP ; 64: C3 RET ; 65: CC10 INT3 16 ; Invalid argument count trap NIL CL-USER> There you go: #'FOOBAR is AOT-compiled down to four MOVs, a CALL, two MOVs, a CLC, a POP and a RET.