[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 24, 10:53 pm, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote: It's a good question how to make this capability used in Sage. This capability is already perfectly usable in Sage: sage: M=sage.calculus.calculus.maxima sage: M.eval(g(x):=block([s:0],for i thru x do s:s+i^2,s);) 'g(x):=block([s:0],forithruxdos:s+i^2,s)' sage: g=M(g) sage: %time g(1); CPU times: user 0.25 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.25 s Wall time: 0.26 s sage: M.eval(compile(g);) '[g]' sage: %time g(1) CPU times: user 0.05 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.05 s Wall time: 0.05 s 83335000 This runs maxima as a lisp-library inside ecl, with ecl running as a dynamically linked library inside sage. I'm sure there are already CL ffi bindings for the Python C-API so that you would also be able to call back into python [is re-entrancy an issue for python?] from lisp if you want to. You can strip away the maxima layer if you so desire: sage: g_lisp=g.ecl() sage: %time g_lisp(1) CPU times: user 0.02 s, sys: 0.00 s, total: 0.02 s Wall time: 0.02 s ECL: 83335000 sage: g_lisp ECL: $G [the variation in the timing here is use, so don't trust these times!] On the ECL level, most conversions are done relatively efficiently, via binary translations (of course, because Python and ECL have their own ideas about memory management, there is no sharing -- objects are copied over between the two worlds. This is the usual price for using libraries that are not particularly made to cooperate with each other. GMP bigints are still done stupidly because I couldn't figure out how to copy over the internally identical bitstrings [both sage and ECL use the same GMP/MPIR library]. The maxima interface is still largely based on string communication (and the eval statements necessarily so!) because that code was inherited from the original pexpect interface, but there is already infrastructure to translate more efficiently. It's just a matter of using it more widely. So yes, if you have a piece of code that is most conveniently written in maxima or lisp, go ahead and compile it! Most data structures will be translated automatically between Python and ECL. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Wed, Nov 23, 2011 at 2:16 PM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: Maxima compiles code to binary, and has done so, oh for a couple of decades. Since Maxima is part of Sage, one might hope that William would be aware of this feature. In the spirit of being mutually informative, here's how it's done in Sage Example. g(x):=block([s:0],for i thru x do s:s+i^2,s); %python def g(x): s = 0 for i in range(x): s += i**2 return s g(1); takes 0.15 seconds. sage: timeit(g(1)) 625 loops, best of 3: 1.45 ms per loop compile(g); converts g to lisp and compiles it with an optimizing compiler. %cython def g(x): s = 0 for i in range(x): s += i**2 return s g is now about 5X faster. sage: timeit(g(1)) 625 loops, best of 3: 833 µs per loop g is now about 2X faster (though unless your computer is *way* slower than mine, there was less room for improvement here). if one inserts declarations, e.g. mode_declare(i,fixnum, x, fixnum, s, fixnum), the code goes about 10X faster. I think that one can improve the speed %cython def g_fast(x): cdef long i, s = 0 for i in range(x): s += i**2 return s sage: timeit(g(1)) 625 loops, best of 3: 10.9 µs per loop Well over a 100-fold increase in speed. Still, if one is dealing with the few parts of Sage that use Maxima, it could be useful to know about this compile command. Note that another selling point of Cython is not just writing new (fast) code, but interfacing with existing low-level libraries in a clean way. - Robert -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Friday, November 25, 2011 10:33:24 AM UTC, Robert Bradshaw wrote: Note that another selling point of Cython is not just writing new (fast) code, but interfacing with existing low-level libraries in a clean way. I think thats the actual advantage of Cython. Every interpreter can dload a library somehow. But try to mix a shared library, some custom C++ code, and the interpreter of your choice. In any commercial Ma* or Java JNI you'll invariably end up writing lots of C stubs that you can then plumb to your interpreter. In Cython it can be done much cleaner. Maxima is at least potentially in a better situation since they (similar to Sage) don't provide an external code interface. You get whatever the underlying common lisp has, which almost certainly got more attention than an interpreter that is specific to mathematical research. CFFI seems to be the emerging standard here, but ECL only just got CFFI support and don't even think about C++ yet. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
re: writing stubs to access C (etc) libraries from Lisp. There are several lisp programs which will take your *.h files and attempt to automatically write all the stubs. This cannot be entirely automated but my limited experience with this suggests it can be quite successful. I've linked to libraries (GMP, I think) that were in some python format, years ago. My own timings are on a different lisp, different compiler optimizations, different computer. The range of speed-ups in compiling Maxima could conceivably from 0 (i.e. not faster at all... maybe even slower...) to huge - 1000X . Based on absolutely no statistical evidence, my guess is that the vast majority of users of Sage use it as a front end to Maxima, or things which could easily be done in Maxima but might also be done in the Pythonish Sage front end language/ system itself. I further guess there is not really a competition between Sage and the commercial Ma*. Rather, competition for mind-space between (A) users who simply download Maxima from sourceforge and use it, possibly contributing to it, and (B) users who download Sage, are told how great python is, and then end up using Sage as a front-end to Maxima, but through an apparently poor pexpect interface. I think it is less likely that such B) users will understand or make use of the tools that might be available in Maxima, and much less likely that these users will contribute to the tools in Maxima, which can most easily be accomplished by writing in the Maxima language or in Common Lisp. Not Python. It would be simple for William to say, occasionally, that Maxima is written in Common Lisp and it is possible to incrementally improve the Maxima component efficiently by writing in Lisp. People do it all the time. Instead we see the occasional proposal which looks like Let's encourage some high school student to rewrite the X facility of Maxima in Python this summer. It's bound to be much faster and better, especially since we can compile parts of it via Cython. And since Python is so easy to learn. The idea that what is difficult about (say) the symbolic definite integration program in Maxima is that it was written in Lisp rather than Python is, to me, a symptom of very shallow analysis of the situation. But we have wandered off the track of the subject line. RJF -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 7:29 AM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: I think thats the actual advantage of Cython. Every interpreter can dload a library somehow. But try to mix a shared library, some custom C++ code, and the interpreter of your choice. In any commercial Ma* or Java JNI you'll invariably end up writing lots of C stubs that you can then plumb to your interpreter. In Cython it can be done much cleaner. https://github.com/twall/jna -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Thu, Nov 24, 2011 at 9:25 PM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: William seems to prefer to tout the Sage-Cython link. That's because we use Cython, and it's easy to use in Sage, and provides a fully-functional language-native interface between Cython and Sage. Not a single part of that is true about the Maxima compiler. It'd be dishonest to go on at length about how awesome and fast and useful this Maxima feature is, if we didn't use it and didn't have its functionality well-exposed in Sage. We're not all Maxima experts (whoda thinkit?), so why don't you show us how to do it, or better yet, improve the Sage-Maxima interface so that we can use it? -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
Sage-devel was so nice for the last few months with out Richard Fateman FUD... On Nov 25, 2011 8:13 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: re: writing stubs to access C (etc) libraries from Lisp. There are several lisp programs which will take your *.h files and attempt to automatically write all the stubs. This cannot be entirely automated but my limited experience with this suggests it can be quite successful. I've linked to libraries (GMP, I think) that were in some python format, years ago. My own timings are on a different lisp, different compiler optimizations, different computer. The range of speed-ups in compiling Maxima could conceivably from 0 (i.e. not faster at all... maybe even slower...) to huge - 1000X . Based on absolutely no statistical evidence, my guess is that the vast majority of users of Sage use it as a front end to Maxima, or things which could easily be done in Maxima but might also be done in the Pythonish Sage front end language/ system itself. I further guess there is not really a competition between Sage and the commercial Ma*. Rather, competition for mind-space between (A) users who simply download Maxima from sourceforge and use it, possibly contributing to it, and (B) users who download Sage, are told how great python is, and then end up using Sage as a front-end to Maxima, but through an apparently poor pexpect interface. I think it is less likely that such B) users will understand or make use of the tools that might be available in Maxima, and much less likely that these users will contribute to the tools in Maxima, which can most easily be accomplished by writing in the Maxima language or in Common Lisp. Not Python. It would be simple for William to say, occasionally, that Maxima is written in Common Lisp and it is possible to incrementally improve the Maxima component efficiently by writing in Lisp. People do it all the time. Instead we see the occasional proposal which looks like Let's encourage some high school student to rewrite the X facility of Maxima in Python this summer. It's bound to be much faster and better, especially since we can compile parts of it via Cython. And since Python is so easy to learn. The idea that what is difficult about (say) the symbolic definite integration program in Maxima is that it was written in Lisp rather than Python is, to me, a symptom of very shallow analysis of the situation. But we have wandered off the track of the subject line. RJF -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
Thanks for your well-thought out contribution. I'm sure you are aware that JNA, although it sucks slightly less than JNI, doesn't support C++. So its back to writing C stubs to use instances from one object-oriented language in another object-oriented language. WTF! On Friday, November 25, 2011 4:17:21 PM UTC, doyen...@gmail.com wrote: https://github.com/twall/jna -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
I was not trying to make any claims. My link was only for those that are not aware of JNA and usually make the claim that JNI is the only way. But I appreciate your message as it reminds me of how welcoming this list is. No WTFs needed, ignore me, and like Ted Kosan I am out of here. On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your well-thought out contribution. I'm sure you are aware that JNA, although it sucks slightly less than JNI, doesn't support C++. So its back to writing C stubs to use instances from one object-oriented language in another object-oriented language. WTF! On Friday, November 25, 2011 4:17:21 PM UTC, doyen...@gmail.com wrote: https://github.com/twall/jna -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
We could always continue this discussion on sage-flame. I think that persons who wish to use this functionality in Maxima could consider that maybe they should just use Maxima. Exposing this functionality better from the Sage top level may be possible, but not something that I am interested in doing. I think the examples are pretty evident. You can take any Maxima program f and compile it by issuing the command compile(f). If you wish to impose assumptions on the types of variables, you can read about mode_declare. This is optional. Perhaps I should point out that I am not opposed to linking together software written originally for different purposes, maybe in different languages. Maxima uses quadpack, linpack, gplot, ... Some of the earliest projects for VAX Macsyma (circa 1979) at Berkeley were to use Macsyma as a front end to MINPACK, and also allow it to exchange data and send commands to MATLAB. (In 1979 Matlab was (a) free. (b) written in Fortran). I have personally written, or supervised students writing, code linking Lisp/Maxima with Excel, .NET, GMP, MPFR, net servers etc. Even within Macsyma/Maxima there is a proliferation of special packages for achieving higher levels of efficiency for subclasses (e.g. polynomials over the integers, Taylor series, Poisson series). I am also not opposed to free software. (Though I do not whole- heartedly endorse GPL as a way to achieve that). I am also not opposed to people learning Python. To the extent that Sage does symbolic mathematical computation in the tradition of (say) the ACM SIGSAM special interest group, it should be possible to be more accurate and complete in portraying what it does and how it does it. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. I find statements like Mathematica is the world's ultimate application for computations... http://www.wolfram.com/products/ to be excusable only because it is written by a marketeer. Claims for Sage are more modest, but not so much. I am leery of using the word ideal [except in abstract algebra] to describe a program I wrote, but as I said, maybe I'm old-fashioned. Many aspects of Sage make it an ideal tool for teaching mathematics, For many mathematicians and students, Sage is today the mature, open source, and free foundation on which they can build their research program. both quotes from focm11.pdf RJF RJF On Nov 25, 8:27 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: Sage-devel was so nice for the last few months with out Richard Fateman FUD... On Nov 25, 2011 8:13 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: re: writing stubs to access C (etc) libraries from Lisp. There are several lisp programs which will take your *.h files and attempt to automatically write all the stubs. This cannot be entirely automated but my limited experience with this suggests it can be quite successful. I've linked to libraries (GMP, I think) that were in some python format, years ago. My own timings are on a different lisp, different compiler optimizations, different computer. The range of speed-ups in compiling Maxima could conceivably from 0 (i.e. not faster at all... maybe even slower...) to huge - 1000X . Based on absolutely no statistical evidence, my guess is that the vast majority of users of Sage use it as a front end to Maxima, or things which could easily be done in Maxima but might also be done in the Pythonish Sage front end language/ system itself. I further guess there is not really a competition between Sage and the commercial Ma*. Rather, competition for mind-space between (A) users who simply download Maxima from sourceforge and use it, possibly contributing to it, and (B) users who download Sage, are told how great python is, and then end up using Sage as a front-end to Maxima, but through an apparently poor pexpect interface. I think it is less likely that such B) users will understand or make use of the tools that might be available in Maxima, and much less likely that these users will contribute to the tools in Maxima, which can most easily be accomplished by writing in the Maxima language or in Common Lisp. Not Python. It would be simple for William to say, occasionally, that Maxima is written in Common Lisp and it is possible to incrementally improve the Maxima component efficiently by writing in Lisp. People do it all the time. Instead we see the occasional proposal which looks like Let's encourage some high school student to rewrite the X facility of Maxima in Python this summer. It's bound to be much faster and better, especially since we can compile parts of it via Cython. And since Python is so easy to learn. The idea that what is difficult about (say) the symbolic definite integration program in Maxima is that it was written in Lisp rather than Python is, to me, a symptom of very shallow analysis of the situation. But we have wandered off the track of the subject line. RJF
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 25, 2011 9:30 AM, Alfredo Portes doyenatc...@gmail.com wrote: I was not trying to make any claims. My link was only for those that are not aware of JNA and usually make the claim that JNI is the only way. But I appreciate your message as it reminds me of how welcoming this list is. No WTFs needed, ignore me, and like Ted Kosan I am out of here. Please do not leave! I am mostly unhappy about how this thread has gone... it is not friendly or helpful (except Nils post). I would rather ask people being mean (or spreading FUD) to please apologize and make this list welcoming. William On Fri, Nov 25, 2011 at 12:12 PM, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: Thanks for your well-thought out contribution. I'm sure you are aware that JNA, although it sucks slightly less than JNI, doesn't support C++. So its back to writing C stubs to use instances from one object-oriented language in another object-oriented language. WTF! On Friday, November 25, 2011 4:17:21 PM UTC, doyen...@gmail.com wrote: https://github.com/twall/jna -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 25, 2011 10:18 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: We could always continue this discussion on sage-flame. Please do. This thread should be about Mathematica and the extent to which their claim to have a compiler for arbitrary Mathematica programs is actually true. William I think that persons who wish to use this functionality in Maxima could consider that maybe they should just use Maxima. Exposing this functionality better from the Sage top level may be possible, but not something that I am interested in doing. I think the examples are pretty evident. You can take any Maxima program f and compile it by issuing the command compile(f). If you wish to impose assumptions on the types of variables, you can read about mode_declare. This is optional. Perhaps I should point out that I am not opposed to linking together software written originally for different purposes, maybe in different languages. Maxima uses quadpack, linpack, gplot, ... Some of the earliest projects for VAX Macsyma (circa 1979) at Berkeley were to use Macsyma as a front end to MINPACK, and also allow it to exchange data and send commands to MATLAB. (In 1979 Matlab was (a) free. (b) written in Fortran). I have personally written, or supervised students writing, code linking Lisp/Maxima with Excel, .NET, GMP, MPFR, net servers etc. Even within Macsyma/Maxima there is a proliferation of special packages for achieving higher levels of efficiency for subclasses (e.g. polynomials over the integers, Taylor series, Poisson series). I am also not opposed to free software. (Though I do not whole- heartedly endorse GPL as a way to achieve that). I am also not opposed to people learning Python. To the extent that Sage does symbolic mathematical computation in the tradition of (say) the ACM SIGSAM special interest group, it should be possible to be more accurate and complete in portraying what it does and how it does it. Maybe I'm old-fashioned. I find statements like Mathematica is the world's ultimate application for computations... http://www.wolfram.com/products/ to be excusable only because it is written by a marketeer. Claims for Sage are more modest, but not so much. I am leery of using the word ideal [except in abstract algebra] to describe a program I wrote, but as I said, maybe I'm old-fashioned. Many aspects of Sage make it an ideal tool for teaching mathematics, For many mathematicians and students, Sage is today the mature, open source, and free foundation on which they can build their research program. Sage is AWESOME both quotes from focm11.pdf RJF RJF On Nov 25, 8:27 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: Sage-devel was so nice for the last few months with out Richard Fateman FUD... On Nov 25, 2011 8:13 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: re: writing stubs to access C (etc) libraries from Lisp. There are several lisp programs which will take your *.h files and attempt to automatically write all the stubs. This cannot be entirely automated but my limited experience with this suggests it can be quite successful. I've linked to libraries (GMP, I think) that were in some python format, years ago. My own timings are on a different lisp, different compiler optimizations, different computer. The range of speed-ups in compiling Maxima could conceivably from 0 (i.e. not faster at all... maybe even slower...) to huge - 1000X . Based on absolutely no statistical evidence, my guess is that the vast majority of users of Sage use it as a front end to Maxima, or things which could easily be done in Maxima but might also be done in the Pythonish Sage front end language/ system itself. I further guess there is not really a competition between Sage and the commercial Ma*. Rather, competition for mind-space between (A) users who simply download Maxima from sourceforge and use it, possibly contributing to it, and (B) users who download Sage, are told how great python is, and then end up using Sage as a front-end to Maxima, but through an apparently poor pexpect interface. I think it is less likely that such B) users will understand or make use of the tools that might be available in Maxima, and much less likely that these users will contribute to the tools in Maxima, which can most easily be accomplished by writing in the Maxima language or in Common Lisp. Not Python. It would be simple for William to say, occasionally, that Maxima is written in Common Lisp and it is possible to incrementally improve the Maxima component efficiently by writing in Lisp. People do it all the time. Instead we see the occasional proposal which looks like Let's encourage some high school student to rewrite the X facility of Maxima in Python this summer. It's bound to be much faster and better, especially since
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 25, 10:28 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 25, 2011 10:18 AM, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: We could always continue this discussion on sage-flame. Please do. This thread should be about Mathematica and the extent to which their claim to have a compiler for arbitrary Mathematica programs is actually true. William Surprisingly, that does seem to be an issue. As I read the document that Andrew Moylan pointed to, it seems to me that what is being offered is this: You can take a Mathematica program P1, and produce a C language version of it P2, and run that version P2. Yet it does not seem to actually run P2 through a C compiler. I suspect that there is simply another byte-code interpreter for the C language that runs that P2. After all, Mathematica does not demand that you have any C compiler in your local computer system. I very much doubt that Andrew is responsible for this part of Mathematica; perhaps he can clarify, or find someone else there to do so. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
Poking around a bit on the wolfram web page, it seems that * Compiling C code requires a 3rd party compiler, otherwise it will fall back to mathematica byte-code * Mathematica will run the compiler for you, you only have to point Mathematica to the desired compiler. * this is new in Mathematica 8 See http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/CompilationTarget.html On Friday, November 25, 2011 7:02:38 PM UTC, rjf wrote: You can take a Mathematica program P1, and produce a C language version of it P2, and run that version P2. Yet it does not seem to actually run P2 through a C compiler -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Friday, November 25, 2011 5:30:40 PM UTC, doyen...@gmail.com wrote: I was not trying to make any claims. My link was only for those that are not aware of JNA and usually make the claim that JNI is the only way. I'm sorry if I offended you. If you would have posted the above explanation instead of just a bare naked link then I would have found it a much more useful contribution to this thread. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 25, 11:30 am, Volker Braun vbraun.n...@gmail.com wrote: Poking around a bit on the wolfram web page, it seems that * Compiling C code requires a 3rd party compiler, otherwise it will fall back to mathematica byte-code * Mathematica will run the compiler for you, you only have to point Mathematica to the desired compiler. * this is new in Mathematica 8 Seehttp://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/CompilationTarget.html Ah yes, more specifically, http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/CCompilerDriver/tutorial/SpecificCompilers.html -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On 23 Nov., 23:16, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: Maxima compiles code to binary, and has done so, oh for a couple of decades. Is Maxima considered to be in the class Ma*? I thought the definition of Ma* is: Name starts with Ma and code is closed source? Cheers, Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
Re: [sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 24, 2011 4:56 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: On 23 Nov., 23:16, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: Maxima compiles code to binary, and has done so, oh for a couple of decades. Is Maxima considered to be in the class Ma*? I thought the definition of Ma* is: Name starts with Ma and code is closed source? I explicitly define Ma in that article as Simon states, so Maxima is not included. Cheers, Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
I was not claiming that Maxima was part of William's Ma* classification (Though perhaps Macsyma would be -- if it were marketed). My objection is that William neglects (or is ignorant of?) features that are in Maxima, and especially those that are superior to features he seems to want to market, for whatever reasons. In fact, Maxima's compilation feature is capable of producing binary code that (a) mirrors entirely the WHOLE interpreted language, except is usually somewhat faster OR (b) in the face of appropriate declarations of subtypes, most typically useful for floating point, can generate code that is appropriately restricted and usually much faster. In either case Maxima automatically loads that code for immediate execution in the same context as interpreted code. Is it faster/better/simpler-to-use than Python/Cython? I am not sufficiently informed on the Cython side. I also thought we went through some discussion about Cython being a compiler for Python. I was told that it was not. The focm11 paper seems to be missing a letter. What is a ython-to-C/C+ + compiler?? I have never used Cython, and have used Python very little. My understanding is that the point of Cython is that it is a different language that resembles Python + declarations. So a more accurate statement regarding Sage would be that someone can write a program in Cython, a language different from the usual Sage Python. This program can be compiled and linked in to Sage. I figure that most of the Ma*s allow you to write a program in some other language like C and possibly Cython [since Cython produces C?] and link it in to their system. For Matlab, I found this http://www.mathworks.com/help/techdoc/matlab_external/f29502.html and apparently for Maple, http://www.mapleprimes.com/posts/38019-Calling-Out-To-C-From-Maple and Mathematica responded already. These calls to external binary programs look kind of messy. It's much nicer in Maxima, or in the Common Lisp that is included in Maxima. I am unmotivated to look at Magma. There is of course the reality that some of these systems spend very little time in their interpreters: Ma* user programs are often the rather trivial stringing together of calls to hugely heavy-weight binary subroutines operating on matrices or large symbolic objects. RJF On Nov 24, 8:14 am, William Stein wst...@gmail.com wrote: On Nov 24, 2011 4:56 AM, Simon King simon.k...@uni-jena.de wrote: On 23 Nov., 23:16, rjf fate...@gmail.com wrote: Maxima compiles code to binary, and has done so, oh for a couple of decades. Is Maxima considered to be in the class Ma*? I thought the definition of Ma* is: Name starts with Ma and code is closed source? I explicitly define Ma in that article as Simon states, so Maxima is not included. Cheers, Simon -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL:http://www.sagemath.org -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
Unless I am missing something, Maxima in Sage is compiled into C using ECL. How fully these capabilities are exploited in Sage, is another question. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Nov 24, 6:52 pm, Dima Pasechnik dimp...@gmail.com wrote: Unless I am missing something, Maxima in Sage is compiled into C using ECL. How fully these capabilities are exploited in Sage, is another question. I think you are missing the point. Unless the ECL system is sadly broken, the Maxima system has the capability of compiling programs written in its top-level language (an Algol-ish style language), into binary code. William seems to prefer to tout the Sage-Cython link. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On Friday, 25 November 2011 13:25:43 UTC+8, rjf wrote: On Nov 24, 6:52 pm, Dima Pasechnik dim...@gmail.com wrote: Unless I am missing something, Maxima in Sage is compiled into C using ECL. How fully these capabilities are exploited in Sage, is another question. I think you are missing the point. Unless the ECL system is sadly broken, the Maxima system has the capability of compiling programs written in its top-level language (an Algol-ish style language), into binary code. good to know. Actually, your example works just fine in Sage's maxima console: sage: maxima_console() ;;; Loading #P/usr/local/src/sage/current/local/lib/ecl/sb-bsd-sockets.fas ;;; Loading #P/usr/local/src/sage/current/local/lib/ecl/sockets.fas ;;; Loading #P/usr/local/src/sage/current/local/lib/ecl/defsystem.fas ;;; Loading #P/usr/local/src/sage/current/local/lib/ecl/cmp.fas Maxima 5.23.2 http://maxima.sourceforge.net using Lisp ECL 11.1.1 Distributed under the GNU Public License. See the file COPYING. Dedicated to the memory of William Schelter. The function bug_report() provides bug reporting information. (%i1) g(x):=block([s:0],for i thru x do s:s+i^2,s); 2 (%o1)g(x) := block([s : 0], for i thru x do s : i + s, s) (%i2) g(1); (%o2)83335000 (%i3) compile(g); ;;; OPTIMIZE levels: Safety=2, Space=0, Speed=3, Debug=0 ;;; ;;; End of Pass 1. ;;; Note: ;;; Refusing to propagate #form PSETQ 102aa68d0 ;;; Note: ;;; Constant value optimized away or not used ;;; $done ;;; Note: ;;; Invoking external command: ;;; gcc -I. -I/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.7.alpha5/local/include/ -I/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.7.alpha5/local/include -g -O2 -fPIC -fno-common -Ddarwin -O2 -w -c /private/var/folders/qW/qWY+4Ku1GF0WXrOsV+IDvk+++TM/-Tmp-/ecl001jfJYt0.c -o /private/var/folders/qW/qWY+4Ku1GF0WXrOsV+IDvk+++TM/-Tmp-/ecl001jfJYt0.o ;;; Note: ;;; Invoking external command: ;;; gcc -o /private/var/folders/qW/qWY+4Ku1GF0WXrOsV+IDvk+++TM/-Tmp-/ecl001jfJYt0.fas -L/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.7.alpha5/local/lib/ /private/var/folders/qW/qWY+4Ku1GF0WXrOsV+IDvk+++TM/-Tmp-/ecl001jfJYt0.o -bundle -L/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.7.alpha5/local/lib -L/usr/local/src/sage/sage-4.7.alpha5/local/lib -lecl -lgmp -lm (%o3) [g] (%i4) g(1); (%o4)83335000 (%i5) It's a good question how to make this capability used in Sage. William seems to prefer to tout the Sage-Cython link. -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
On 11/23/11 9:36 AM, William Stein wrote: -- Forwarded message -- From: Andrew Moylan Date: Wednesday, November 23, 2011 Subject: C compiler in Mathematica To: wst...@gmail.com mailto:wst...@gmail.com Hello Prof Stein, In your FoCM 11 article at http://modular.math.washington.edu/papers/focm11/focm11.pdf you mentioned None of the Ma's has an optimizing compiler that converts programs written in their custom interpreted language to a- fast executable binary format that is not interpreted at runtime. However Mathematica 8's compiler does have this capability: Compile with the setting CompilationTarget - C compiles and links to a native machine code dynamic library (http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/CompilationTarget.html). Neat! I just tried it out in MMA 8 and the fractal example from the documentation above seems to work pretty well. You might forward back to them that there is a grammar typo in the last sentence on that page. Note that this is an image to interact with the picture you need to evaluate the commands: should have a semicolon or period somewhere in there. Thanks, Jason -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
[sage-devel] Re: Fwd: C compiler in Mathematica
Maxima compiles code to binary, and has done so, oh for a couple of decades. Since Maxima is part of Sage, one might hope that William would be aware of this feature. Example. g(x):=block([s:0],for i thru x do s:s+i^2,s); g(1); takes 0.15 seconds. compile(g); converts g to lisp and compiles it with an optimizing compiler. g is now about 5X faster. if one inserts declarations, e.g. mode_declare(i,fixnum, x, fixnum, s, fixnum), the code goes about 10X faster. I think that one can improve the speed substantially beyond that by setting optimization levels in the (lisp) compiler. I was using a GCL-based Maxima. RJF -- To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel URL: http://www.sagemath.org
