On Wed, Sep 1, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Neil Van Dyke <[email protected]> wrote:
> ... Though, it might be a useful thing for the Racket > interpreter (compiler) to have hooks of some kind for pluggable > optimizations. Useful both for practical use and for increasing how Racket > can be used as a language research platform. GHC allows user specified rewrite rules: http://www.haskell.org/ghc/docs/6.12.2/html/users_guide/rewrite-rules.html I don't know how effective they are in practice. They raise tricky semantic issues and more so in an eager language with side-effects. See http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Playing_by_the_rules > It's fortunate that Matthew has seemingly infinite time for all the work > that people would like him to do. :) Indeed. > I still like the idea of doing the matrix optimizations in pure Racket with > internally-optimizing ADTs with lazy operations, rather than with syntax > extension mini-language, an entire front-end language, or compiler hooks. The ADT approach is the most practical, I believe. There is a Python project called Theano (http://deeplearning.net/software/theano/) that does similar. It can spit out C and GPU code and do other fun stuff. N. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
