4 ms·

Lisp in Go or: How Go is significantly slower than Dart

5 points by suzuki 11y ago

suzuki 11y ago
Here is a Lisp interpreter written in Go. It has macros, backquotations, tail-call optimization, concurrency primitives (future/force) and fairly traditional synax; you can just use it if you know (Emacs|Common) Lisp. http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3.html $ wget http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/lisp-1.3.zip ... $ unzip lisp-1.3.zip ... $ GOPATH=`pwd` go build lisp/lisp $ ./lisp > (+ 5 6) 11 > (dump) (atom <= >= cdar exit % gensym and symbol-name *version* print terpri listp or w hen setcar cdaar caadr cons append cdadr defmacro * numberp stringp rplacd inter n mapcar caaar dump nconc _nreverse if cadr apply force equal /= rplaca length a ssoc assq letrec + < = while member setcdr null defun dolist > cddar eq memq _ap pend let cadar cddr prin1 mod / dotimes identity cdddr list consp caar make-symb ol truncate eql last *gensym-counter* nreverse not caddr princ - cdr car) > atom #<atom:1> > <= #<closure:2:nil:((not (< #0:1:y #0:0:x)))> > defun #<macro:-3:((list 'progn (list 'setq #0:0:name (cons 'lambda (cons #0:1:args #0: 2:body))) (list 'quote #0:0:name)))> > (defun fact (n) (if (= n 0) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1))) )) fact > (fact 3) 6 > (fact 100) 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915 608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 > Its implementation is a free translation of the Dart script of 1,200 lines: http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html Go compiles programs into native codes. It may be supposed that Lisp in Go is faster than those in Dart. But the fact is the opposite. Lisp in Go is slower, and sometimes significantly slower, than Lisp in Dart. http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3.html#6 http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/eval-fib15.png The benchmark "(eval '(fib 15))" used in the above is given at http://blog.bugyo.tk/lyrical/archives/2024 where you see another Dart Lisp by Zick that is one of the fastest among many Lisp interpreters written in many languages.
gus_massa 11y ago
Autotranslation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oki-osk.jp%2Fesc%2Fgolang%2Flisp3.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%... The comparison is interesting, but I'm not sure if all the implementations have the same set of features. IIRC tail-call optimization and continuations are difficult to implement efficiently.
- suzuki 11y ago
  The implementations in Dart and Go in the comparison, [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-03-31.tar.bz2 [2] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp2/lisp-light.zip [3] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/lisp-1.3.zip have exactly the same set of features except that * [2] in Go does not have big numbers nor floating-point numbers, and * [3] in Go has two concurrency primitives, future and force. As for the performance, [2] should have an advantage. But all in all, [2] and [3] have almost the same performance, which is inferior to [1] in Dart. All [1][2][3] use the same way to implement tail-call optimization efficiently. It is described at http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html#4 As for Python/Ruby/Java, the implementations in the comparison, [4] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v72.html [5] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v73.html [6] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v9.html have roughly the same architecture to [1][2][3].
  - suzuki 11y ago
    I'm sorry. I have mistaken the URL of the implementation in Dart which was compared to those in Go: < [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-03-31.tar.bz2 --- > [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-05-08.tar.bz2 The page http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html refers to both of them.

5 points by suzuki 11y ago

Here is a Lisp interpreter written in Go. It has macros, backquotations, tail-call optimization, concurrency primitives (future/force) and fairly traditional synax; you can just use it if you know (Emacs|Common) Lisp. http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3.html $ wget http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/lisp-1.3.zip ... $ unzip lisp-1.3.zip ... $ GOPATH=`pwd` go build lisp/lisp $ ./lisp > (+ 5 6) 11 > (dump) (atom <= >= cdar exit % gensym and symbol-name *version* print terpri listp or w hen setcar cdaar caadr cons append cdadr defmacro * numberp stringp rplacd inter n mapcar caaar dump nconc _nreverse if cadr apply force equal /= rplaca length a ssoc assq letrec + < = while member setcdr null defun dolist > cddar eq memq _ap pend let cadar cddr prin1 mod / dotimes identity cdddr list consp caar make-symb ol truncate eql last *gensym-counter* nreverse not caddr princ - cdr car) > atom #<atom:1> > <= #<closure:2:nil:((not (< #0:1:y #0:0:x)))> > defun #<macro:-3:((list 'progn (list 'setq #0:0:name (cons 'lambda (cons #0:1:args #0: 2:body))) (list 'quote #0:0:name)))> > (defun fact (n) (if (= n 0) 1 (* n (fact (- n 1))) )) fact > (fact 3) 6 > (fact 100) 93326215443944152681699238856266700490715968264381621468592963895217599993229915 608941463976156518286253697920827223758251185210916864000000000000000000000000 > Its implementation is a free translation of the Dart script of 1,200 lines: http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html Go compiles programs into native codes. It may be supposed that Lisp in Go is faster than those in Dart. But the fact is the opposite. Lisp in Go is slower, and sometimes significantly slower, than Lisp in Dart. http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3.html#6 http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/eval-fib15.png The benchmark "(eval '(fib 15))" used in the above is given at http://blog.bugyo.tk/lyrical/archives/2024 where you see another Dart Lisp by Zick that is one of the fastest among many Lisp interpreters written in many languages.

gus_massa 11y ago

Autotranslation: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.oki-osk.jp%2Fesc%2Fgolang%2Flisp3.html https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%... The comparison is interesting, but I'm not sure if all the implementations have the same set of features. IIRC tail-call optimization and continuations are difficult to implement efficiently.

suzuki 11y ago
The implementations in Dart and Go in the comparison, [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-03-31.tar.bz2 [2] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp2/lisp-light.zip [3] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/golang/lisp3/lisp-1.3.zip have exactly the same set of features except that * [2] in Go does not have big numbers nor floating-point numbers, and * [3] in Go has two concurrency primitives, future and force. As for the performance, [2] should have an advantage. But all in all, [2] and [3] have almost the same performance, which is inferior to [1] in Dart. All [1][2][3] use the same way to implement tail-call optimization efficiently. It is described at http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html#4 As for Python/Ruby/Java, the implementations in the comparison, [4] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v72.html [5] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v73.html [6] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/llsp/v9.html have roughly the same architecture to [1][2][3].
- suzuki 11y ago
  I'm sorry. I have mistaken the URL of the implementation in Dart which was compared to those in Go: < [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-03-31.tar.bz2 --- > [1] http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp/lisp-27-05-08.tar.bz2 The page http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html http://www.oki-osk.jp/esc/dart/lisp.html refers to both of them.