Oops... I figured the list would insert a "Reply-to" address...
anyways, here you go:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Isaac Freeman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Dec 17, 2006 11:27 PM
Subject: Re: [C--] C-- status report: yes, someone is (barely) out here
To: Brian Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Wow, I feel like I've stirred up a bees nest, but maybe this is a good
thing. I agree with 90% of your post, however I have to disagree about
luck being the main ingredient in an open source project. To the
contrary, I feel we can look at plenty of examples of successful open
source projects and find a common theme. I feel it is primarily about
presentation. As much as I hate to admit it, there have been plenty of
times when I have gone to the website of some project and was greatly
discouraged by the fact that their webpage looks like it was built by
a middle-schooler, or they documentation is hard to understand, or
hard to find on the site. Lack of tutorials for the novice are also a
very significant turn-off. I'm not saying that all of these things
apply to C-- (the website doesn't look half bad, e.g.) but I feel
these things are crucial. If you want your project to take off, you
have to market it as though it were a scalable, multi-paradigm,
enterprise level, Y2K compliant, organic, shade-grown compiler
infrastructure solution application tool suite. (feel free to add more
buzz-words)
As a counter example, I feel one of the largest stumbling blocks for
the industry adoption of languages like Haskell is the fact that it
still markets itself as some mathematics/computer science professor's
little experimental project. (no offense, I think it's way-cool, but
most developers aren't interested in all that) As a result the
majority of the documentation and literature reads like a white-paper
on category theory and is thus above the scope of most people who
might try to adopt Haskell for their next big project. I.e., it
doesn't look mature. I feel C-- still suffers a bit from "professor's
pet project" syndrome a bit, I think C-- needs get a little dressed up
and go out on the town, so to speak.
Anyways, I could be completely off base, but them's my two cents, take
it or leave it. Again, like I said before, I'd love to help where I
can, and while I wouldn't consider myself to be in position to take
over the project, by any means, I am happy to do any level of
grunt-work coding, or maybe give ideas/suggestions, etc. I do happen
to have a fairly thorough understanding of Ocaml (in fact, that's what
I'm writing my current project in, the one that is dying for want of a
back-end compiler :P) and have glanced around at the code. I just
wouldn't even know where to begin without some guidance.
Thanks,
Isaac
On 12/17/06, Brian Hurt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Thanks for the status report. Some comments that may or may not help...
>
> First of all, let me say that I think C-- did hit the nail on the head.
> It was successfull in doing something that I think needed to be done.
>
> Speaking as someone who has been wandering around looking at alternatives
> for implementing a functional language, the pros and cons of the
> various options are:
>
> - GCC: Still quite complicated to work with, still requires you to write
> your compiler in C. Implementing a decent type system is going to be
> interesting enough in Ocaml or Haskell, I'll pass on doing that in C.
> Which means a hybrid compiler, with a lot more complexity. Also,
> functional languages are definately still second class citizens in GCC
> world- things like tail call optimization are still not where they need to
> be. Which means implementing an optimization layer above GCC to deal with
> tail calls. Plus you still have all the run time library issues you need
> to deal with- you still need to write a GC, exception handlers, threading,
> etc. On the plus side, you do get a lot of fancy optimizations- SSE use,
> etc.
>
> - Java/C#: The big advantage of targeting these run times is that with a
> little work in the language, you can take advantage of the huge libraries
> these runtimes have. This the big advantage of an F# or Acute. And you
> get at least middling decent optimization. But only middling- Haskell's
> pure laziness costs about as much performance as Java's virtual machine
> architecture, as an approximation.
>
> You don't have to write your own gc or exception handlers, but this is
> because you don't have a choice- you get to use what the runtime provides
> you. And the ones the runtime provides you is decidedly suboptimal for
> functional languages, especially in the GC department. Don Syme of F#
> asked the CLR people if they could maybe tune the GC to work better with
> programs with high rates of allocation (aka functional programs), and got
> told that high rates of allocation were a bug. Plus, I think tail call
> optimization is even less advanced in these environments than GCC. So
> again you're hitting the functional programming as a second class citizen
> problem.
>
> - Write your own back end. This is a boatload of work (as you guys well
> know)- approximately as much work as everything else in the compiler put
> together. Also note that you still have all the run time issues to deal
> with.
>
> - Write your own virtual machine. And just eat the performance. Note
> that again you still need to implement your own GC, threading, etc. For
> performance, you're aiming at Ruby/PHP/TCL/Bourne shell level of
> performance- the level below Java/C#/Haskell. Where functional
> programming really shines, I think, is programming in the large- word
> processors and CAD/CAM systems etc. It's when you start dealing with
> things like maintainance and large scale reuse and multithreading that
> functional programming really spreads it's wings and flies. And, unlike
> scripting/web programming, performance really does matter. Even stepping
> down to Java-level performance becomes a problem (see OpenOffice). For
> "proof of concept" languages this may not be a problem, but if you ever
> want your language to have even a remote possibility of being used by
> anyone other than yourself, this isn't acceptable.
>
> - Use C as a back-end. You're writing your own runtime again, tail
> recursion is poorly supported again, and a lot of function programming
> constructs don't map well to C.
>
> - Use C--. You still have to implement your runtime, but you're basically
> going to have to do that anyways. You get decent optimization, you get to
> write your compiler in the language you want to, and functional languages
> are first class languages.
>
> Of these options, I think C-- (assuming it's not a dead project) is the
> best of the lot. Even if it needs some work (an x86-64 back end, the
> ability to move a stack frame from one stack to another), it'll be no more
> work than any other option. My second choice would be GCC as a back end,
> I think. But the point here is that the fundamental niche C-- fills is
> still usefull and needed.
>
> Success in open source projects is mainly a matter of luck. This is
> especially true for infrastructure projects, whose success depends upon
> some other successfull project using them. I've been involved in
> uncounted email "discussions" (aka flamewars) along the lines of "what
> does this project need to do to be successfull", and I've seen all sorts
> of proposals and seen pretty much all of them shot down. To my knowledge,
> there seems to be two requirements: 1) write code that works, and 2) get
> lucky.
>
> Some forms of luck you can make for yourself, however. One of the big
> strokes of luck that C-- lacks is a big, well known project that uses it.
> To give an example not quite at random, if a functional language luminary
> like Simon Peyton Jones were to start a project to design the successor to
> Haskell and Ocaml using C-- as the back end, that'd be a huge boost to
> C--. Success of the Haskell++ language using C-- would bring visibility,
> credibility, and developers to C--.
>
> I'm not sure if he'd be interested in such a project (even if he had
> volunteers, like you're truely, to do a lot of lifting). I mention this
> because this is effectively why I'm looking at C-- (modulo SPJ's
> envolvement).
>
> I am less convinced that converting C-- to C is all that important. Maybe
> C-- to GCC's back end. But the main benefit that would bring is support
> for more architectures. If anything, the architecture realm has gotten
> simpler since 1998. The Alpha, PA-RISC, and MIPS architectures are dead,
> Itanium is a no-show, and Apple has dropped the PowerPC for the x86. By
> the time there is any demand for the Power/PowerPC or Sparc architectures
> to be supported, there will be more than enough developer interest to do
> so. So the only architectures that really matter are x86-32 and x86-64.
>
> The fancy optimizations (autovectorization, etc.) you'd get from enganging
> a C backend would be nice, but I don't think they're necessary. The vast
> bulk of the performance boost native code gets is due to the lack if JIT
> compiling costs, register allocation, and simple peephole optimization.
> Well, and functional programming specific optimizations (uncurrying,
> etc.). The "fancy optimizations" give you maybe 10-30% over basic
> optimizations. You could easily hit Ocaml-level speeds with C--.
>
> As for the generic run-time library, I think this is fraught with dangers.
> The biggest of which is the "you didn't do things exactly the way I wanted
> them done in my language, so it's worthless" syndrome. The original
> design of C-- had it dead right, IMHO. Things like exception handling and
> garbage collection are too heavily impacted by the language design and
> goals to have generic implementations. For example, how do you know
> what's a pointer and what isn't? An Ocaml-like language may want to
> decide to take the low order bit of every integer as a tag bit. A more
> Java-like language may decide to use the reflection capabilities of the
> language to do GC. Do you allow objects in older generations to hold
> pointers to objects in younger generations? A functional language might
> say no, an imperitive language might say yes. Are destructors common or
> uncommon? Try to please everyone, and you'll likely end up with neither
> fish nor fowl, or a huge white elephant ("a mouse built to goverment
> specifications")- something that's equally useless to everyone.
>
> Were I to implement such a library, I'd be inclined to do it primarily as
> the runtime to my language. Which would at least guarentee one user, and
> gaurentee it fits the needs of one language. But again, the success of
> the library would be primarily based on the success of the language built
> on top of it.
>
> I think the three new things I'd like to see out of C-- are (in rough
> order of priority):
> 1) x86-64 support
> 2) the ability to move/copy a stack frame from one stack to another, and
> 3) Some form of inline assembler without having to go to C (necessary for
> writting threading primitives in C--)
>
> I am contemplating just adding those capabilities.
>
> Brian
> _______________________________________________
> Cminusminus mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://cminusminus.org/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus
>
--
James "Isaac" Freeman
(919) 749-3561
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
James "Isaac" Freeman
(919) 749-3561
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
Cminusminus mailing list
[email protected]
https://cminusminus.org/mailman/listinfo/cminusminus
