Re: [Ur] Improving JS VM (was: Re: Arrays and maps?)

2017-08-10 Thread Adam Chlipala 

On 07/24/2017 11:08 PM, Artyom Shalkhakov wrote:

2017-07-25 1:46 GMT+06:00 Aistis Raulinaitis :

I agree, I think arrays are much overused in programming for the most part.
My thoughts on are that these libs should facilitate easier interop with the
existing JS libs rather than as a bedrock for a data structure on the
frontend. On the other hand, I like the idea of a finger tree
implementation. My only question is, since we have the choice, would it be
more appropriate to implement it using modules or type classes? My Haskell
background makes me lean in one direction, but I think it would be
interesting to have both. That being said, I should have the js array
library out in the next day or two. Mind you both of these libs in their
forEach functions call execF twice. So you are invoking the Ur/Web runtime
twice for each element. This shouldn't be too bad depending on the
calculation, but it's something to keep in mind.


Speaking of which, how is the VM implemented and are there any
low-hanging fruits to improve it?


That is a tough question to give a short answer to!  However, you can 
find the whole implementation within urweb/lib/js/urweb.js.  The whole 
runtime system is there, but the file is an upper bound on VM 
complexity.  It's under 2000 lines of code.


I haven't heard anyone complain about performance of client-side Ur/Web 
code in years, as far as I can remember, so it's not clear there are any 
high-priority issues on that front.


___
Ur mailing list
Ur@impredicative.com
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur

[Ur] Improving JS VM (was: Re: Arrays and maps?)

2017-07-24 Thread Artyom Shalkhakov 
2017-07-25 1:46 GMT+06:00 Aistis Raulinaitis :
> I agree, I think arrays are much overused in programming for the most part.
> My thoughts on are that these libs should facilitate easier interop with the
> existing JS libs rather than as a bedrock for a data structure on the
> frontend. On the other hand, I like the idea of a finger tree
> implementation. My only question is, since we have the choice, would it be
> more appropriate to implement it using modules or type classes? My Haskell
> background makes me lean in one direction, but I think it would be
> interesting to have both. That being said, I should have the js array
> library out in the next day or two. Mind you both of these libs in their
> forEach functions call execF twice. So you are invoking the Ur/Web runtime
> twice for each element. This shouldn't be too bad depending on the
> calculation, but it's something to keep in mind.
>

Speaking of which, how is the VM implemented and are there any
low-hanging fruits to improve it?

> On Sun, Jul 23, 2017 at 9:50 PM, Artyom Shalkhakov
>  wrote:
>>
>> 2017-07-23 0:15 GMT+06:00 Benjamin Barenblat :
>> > On Sat, Jul 22, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Artyom Shalkhakov
>> >  wrote:
>> >> Is it possible to extend Ur/Web with arrays and maps?
>> >
>> > If you really want an array, I think you’re stuck with the FFI. However,
>> > if you just want a bag and amortized runtimes are good enough, you
>> > should implement a finger tree. You lose spatial locality, but finger
>> > trees are much more suited to pure languages like Ur. There is also a
>> > high-quality BSD-licensed implementation in Haskell* that you can base
>> > your work on.
>> >
>>
>> I'm currently doing some exercises here:
>>
>> https://github.com/ashalkhakov/urweb-projects/blob/master/sam/app.ur
>>
>> and the next thing I'm going to tackle is a TodoMVC clone (I know that
>> a demo is available on the Ur/Web website, but I'd like to implement
>> it according to State-Action-Model structuring pattern). This requires
>> implementing a client-side "model" for storing TODO items. Typical JS
>> applications don't bother and use the built-in arrays. So my idea was
>> to go the same route, and then test performance on a big dataset. I'm
>> a bit concerned about performance.
>>
>> I was also thinking that if Ur/Web is missing arrays/maps, then it's a
>> good project to tackle.
>>
>> > On the map front, the traditional functional map construction is a
>> > balanced binary tree. This one’s a bit unfortunate, because you lose the
>> > amortized O(1) promise that you get from hash tables, and you wind up
>> > with amortized O(log n) instead. However, they’re simple to implement
>> > and only require an `ord` instance for the keys. If you implement finger
>> > trees or arrays, you can use them to build hash tables and hash
>> > sets. However, you then have to create a `hashable` type class and all
>> > the infrastructure associated with it, so it’s a bit more work. Both
>> > binary trees and hash data structures are useful to have, so go for
>> > whatever sounds most fun to program.
>> >
>>
>> Thanks! I'll see what I can do about it. It should be a fun exercise
>> to implement a finger tree or an RB tree or some such.
>>
>> >
>> > * https://hackage.haskell.org/package/containers/docs/Data-Sequence.html
>> >
>> > ___
>> > Ur mailing list
>> > Ur@impredicative.com
>> > http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Cheers,
>> Artyom Shalkhakov
>>
>> ___
>> Ur mailing list
>> Ur@impredicative.com
>> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>
>
>
> ___
> Ur mailing list
> Ur@impredicative.com
> http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur
>



-- 
Cheers,
Artyom Shalkhakov

___
Ur mailing list
Ur@impredicative.com
http://www.impredicative.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ur