On 2021-09-20 05:08:55 -0700, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> You have to copy C1,..,Cm one position down. On the other
> hand, when scanning the single list, removing the
> element is just pointer swizzling.
That's the problem. You think that pointer swizzling is fast because you
are used to language
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 3:58 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> I read the following, and you should also know:
>
> > Python's [] is implemented as an array, not a linked list.
> > Although resizing is O(n), appending to it is amortized O(1),
> > because resizes happen very rarely.
> https://stackov
On Tue, Sep 21, 2021 at 3:51 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> sympy also builds a language on top of Python.
> pandas also builds a language on top of Python.
>
> Is there some pope that says this wouldn't be
> allowed, I dont think so, otherwise sympy, pandas, etc..
>
> wouldn't exist. I dont und
Now I am expecting somebody telling me I should not
program Java style in Python. So I wonder what would have
happened if I would tell you I am FORTRAN programmer.
Then somebody would tell me I should not program
FORTRAN style in Python. Hopefully this makes it evident
that this argumentation is
The sweep_trail() is not an issue. There must be a bottleneck
somewhere else in Python. The sweep_trail() respectively the
paremt call gc() only takes a very small fraction of the runtime:
Check the "gc" timing, the bottleneck is somewhere else?
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. Septemb
In general the algorithm I am using is from
a paper by Matts Carlson from SICStus Prolog.
Its this paper here:
Garbage Collection for Prolog Based on WAM
January 1986
Karen Appleby, Mats Carlsson, Seif Haridi, Dan Sahlin
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279463524
But since you guys are s
Also I am not a C programmer. The last time I was programming C
was 30 years ago. I am mostly a Java programmer the recent years.
Dogelog Runtime adopts a lot of implementation details from
Jekejeke Prolog which is a Prolog written in Java. The difference
betweeen the two is that Jekejeke Prolog
This strategy works if you use failure driven loops.
It doesn't work you program recursive loops that go
on forever. Like Erlang processes.
foo(X) :-
bar(X,Y), foo(Y).
Typically Y is a fresh variable. A good Prolog system
with good Garbage Collection can run such a process
for days and months.
What would be maybe possible, is to
scan the trail from the other side, and
use a first pass to determine the new
size, and use a second pass to fill a new
array with the remaining elments. This would
be two times O(n), so it would be linear
and not quadratic O(n^2) as when you scan
from the top
Please be patient. A big problem with development can be
burnout. So I am trying to slow down things at the moment.
The ideas are easy to sketch, but implementation can take
weeks. Here is the idea again in a nutshell: use ast.parse()
and compile(). Or build directly an AST, not using the string
I read the following, and you should also know:
> Python's [] is implemented as an array, not a linked list.
> Although resizing is O(n), appending to it is amortized O(1),
> because resizes happen very rarely.
https://stackoverflow.com/a/5932364/502187
The list type doesn't have an O(1) opera
Also I nowhere wrote that I would use doubly-linked list or
a set of objects. The trail is neither, its a single linked list. I
also refer directly to objects, I do not need the trail to refer
to objects. The Prolog trail is only a logbook. The Prolog trail
has similarity to a database log:
t
But I dont see any utility in investing too much time with
the Prolog garbage collection of Dogelog runtime. It is
only a small share of the execution time:
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Freitag, 17. September 2021 um 10:58:57 UTC+2:
> %%%
> % S
sympy also builds a language on top of Python.
pandas also builds a language on top of Python.
Is there some pope that says this wouldn't be
allowed, I dont think so, otherwise sympy, pandas, etc..
wouldn't exist. I dont understand your argument.
Chris Angelico schrieb:
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:19 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
On the other hand if I would use the trigger
from Python, I possibly would need a double linked
list, to remove an element.
Here's another idea: Put weak references in the trail, but
don't bother with the scanning -- just skip over dea
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 9:50 PM Peter J. Holzer wrote:
> > Let Python be Python, don't try to build your own language on top of
> > it.
>
> Well, he's writing a Prolog interpreter, so building his own language on
> top of Python is sort of the point. I think a better way to put it is
> "Don't try
On 2021-09-20 04:33:39 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:19 AM Mostowski Collapse
> wrote:
> > Question to Chris Angelico: If I stay with my
> > sweep_trail(), which is the periodically scanning,
> > I can use a single linked list.
> >
> > On the other hand if I would use t
On Mon, Sep 20, 2021 at 3:19 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> I am refering to:
>
> Greg Ewing schrieb:
> > where [w] is a weak reference object. Then you could periodically
> > scan the trail looking for dead weakref objects and remove the
> > corresponding [*] node from the list.
> >
> > Yo
The trail itself can possibly not be eliminated. Its like a
database logfile. The trail is used during backtracking to
undo variable bindings. Which is like a database rollback.
Here is an example where a tail is used:
/* X equals 1 or X equals 2 */
?- X=1; X=2.
X = 1;
X = 2.
In the first answer
I am refering to:
Greg Ewing schrieb:
> where [w] is a weak reference object. Then you could periodically
> scan the trail looking for dead weakref objects and remove the
> corresponding [*] node from the list.
>
> You can also attach callbacks to weakref objects that are triggered
> when the ref
On Sun, Sep 19, 2021 at 11:46 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> Yeah, it seems weak references could indeed spare
> me mark_term(). But then I am stil left with sweep_trail().
> I did not yet measure what takes more time mark_term()
> or sweep_trail(). The displayed "gc" is the sum of both.
>
> Fro
On 16/09/21 6:13 am, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
So in Python I now do the following:
peek = kb.get(functor, NotImplemented)
if peek is not NotImplemented:
If you're able to use None instead of NotImplemented, you
could simplify that to
peek = kb.get(functor)
if peek:
..
Yeah, it seems weak references could indeed spare
me mark_term(). But then I am stil left with sweep_trail().
I did not yet measure what takes more time mark_term()
or sweep_trail(). The displayed "gc" is the sum of both.
>From what I have seen, very large trail practically reduced
to a zero trail
On 17/09/21 8:41 pm, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
Are exceptions
blocks in Python cheap or expensive? Are they like
in Java, some code annotation, or like in Go
programming language pushing some panic handler?
They're not free, but they're not hugely expensive either.
Don't be afraid to use them w
On 17/09/21 7:56 am, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
The trail in Dogelog
Runtime is a single linked list:
-->[ A ]-->[ B ]-->[ C ]-->
Now if B becomes unused, you need to rewire
the trail, it should then look like:
-->[ A ]-->[ C ]-->
Python has a way of creating weak references
Concerning garbage collection, did a long term
measurement for the first time. I measured
LIPS for fibonacci numbers, i.e. time(fibo(23,X)).
Doing the same thing 16 times, how long does it take?
Here is a depiction how the LIPS relatively differ in each run:
https://gist.github.com/jburse/c85297e9
No its cooperative. Usually objects do get
garbage collected by the native garbage collector
of the host language in Dogelog runtime.
The Prolog garbage collection is only to help
the host language garbage collector when you have
a deep recursion in Prolog.
You can then reclaim intermediate vari
The Prolog garbage collection that does
the movement on the variable trail is only
a very small fraction of the runtime.
The garbage collection time is measured.
Some measurements with version 0.9.5
took the following values:
%%%
% Standard Pyt
On 16/09/21 6:56 am, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
What could be slow, repeatedly requesting the "args"
field. Maybe I should do:
help = term.args
i = 0
while i < len(help) - 1:
mark_term(help[i])
i += 1
term = help[i]
Yes, that will certainly help.
But you're still evaluating len(help) -
Thanks for your response, will have a look.
Ok, dis() is all that is need to disassemble.
Very cool!
A long term goal could be indeed to have
a Prolog interpreter produce 20MLips, like
SWI-Prolog, but tightly integrated into
Python. So that it directly makes use of
the Python objects and the Py
On 16/09/21 2:56 pm, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
I can access the functor of a compound via:
obj.functor
but when I flatten Compound into arrays, it would become:
obj[0]
Should I declare a constant FUNCTOR = 0?
You could, but keep in mind that access to a global in Python
is somew
On 16/09/21 4:23 am, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
I really wonder why my Python implementation
is a factor 40 slower than my JavaScript implementation.
There are Javascript implementations around nowadays that are
blazingly fast. Partly that's because a lot of effort has been
put into them, but it
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 7:17 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> About Exceptions: Thats just building ISO core
> standard Prolog error terms.
>
> About Garbage Collection: Thats just Prolog
> garbage collection, which does shrink some
> single linked lists, which ordinary
> programmig language GC ca
ns from a more primitive language.
> -Original Message-
> From: Python-list On
> Behalf Of Mostowski Collapse
> Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:59 PM
> To: pytho...@python.org
> Subject: Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
>
> Here is a chall
-list On
Behalf Of Mostowski Collapse
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2021 3:59 PM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
Here is a challenge for Python.
Can Python solve Sudoku?
Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> I am not testing this use-case. Bu
A friend just sent me a Web Sudoku made with Dogelog Runtime
https://gist.github.com/jburse/c85297e97091caf22d306dd8c8be12fe#gistcomment-3895696
LoL
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Donnerstag, 16. September 2021 um 21:59:05 UTC+2:
> Here is a challenge for Python.
> Can Python solve Sudoku?
>
>
Here is a challenge for Python.
Can Python solve Sudoku?
Mostowski Collapse wrote:
I am not testing this use-case. But a related
use-case might highlight why speed did never
hurt anybody.
Lets say you program a flying drone with Python,
and the measurement is from the drone sensor
and communica
About Exceptions: Thats just building ISO core
standard Prolog error terms.
About Garbage Collection: Thats just Prolog
garbage collection, which does shrink some
single linked lists, which ordinary
programmig language GC cannot do,
or maybe some Weak Pointer magic can do it?
The use case is ver
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 3:20 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> Compound is not used for boxing. Integers and floats
> are represented directly. Also integers are not mapped to
> floats. But maybe compound could be a little flattened,
>
"Boxing" in this case isn't about ints and floats, since Java-
Compound is not used for boxing. Integers and floats
are represented directly. Also integers are not mapped to
floats. But maybe compound could be a little flattened,
like using directly an array. But then you cannot assure
anymore "clean, simple, readable code". For example now
I have clean, simp
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 7:59 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> BTW: I could already make it faster, by not repeatedly
> accessing .arg anymore. It went down from ca.:
>
> 171'000 ms
>
> To this here:
>
> 140'000 ms
>
> But only in the cold run. In the warm run it went back
> to 171'000 ms. Possibly
Thank you for the suggestion. The test harness
is invoked as follows. So it does already do time/1,
thats also how I did the comparison Standard Python
and GraalVM Python, a file dogelog.py:
import sys
# sys.path.append("\jekrun_bench\core\harness2\libpy")
sys.path.append("/mnt/c//jekrun_bench/c
BTW: I could already make it faster, by not repeatedly
accessing .arg anymore. It went down from ca.:
171'000 ms
To this here:
140'000 ms
But only in the cold run. In the warm run it went back
to 171'000 ms. Possibly when my code is faster,
it will create objects more faster, and kill the Pytho
Ok you suggested:
>>>items = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0]
>>>for item in items[:-1]:
>>> print(item)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Does this also work for length = 1? Ok let me try:
>>> foo = ["a","b","c"]
>>> for x in foo[:-1]:
... print(x)
...
a
b
>>> foo = ["a"]
>>> for x in foo[:-1]:
... print(x)
...
On 9/15/2021 5:10 PM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
And how do you only iterate over n-1 elements?
I don't need a loop over all elements.
With array slicing?
Someting like:
for item in items[0:len(items)-2]:
___print(item)
Or with negative slicing indexes? Problem
is my length can be equal to one
And how do you only iterate over n-1 elements?
I don't need a loop over all elements.
With array slicing?
Someting like:
for item in items[0:len(items)-2]:
___print(item)
Or with negative slicing indexes? Problem
is my length can be equal to one.
And when I have length equal to one, the
slic
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:56:47 -0700, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> What could be slow, repeatedly requesting the "args"
> field. Maybe I should do:
>
> help = term.args i = 0 while i < len(help) - 1:
> mark_term(help[i])
> i += 1 term = help[i]
>
No this construct is a common error in new p
On 9/15/2021 12:23 PM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
I really wonder why my Python implementation
is a factor 40 slower than my JavaScript implementation.
Structurally its the same code.
You can check yourself:
Python Version:
https://github.com/jburse/dogelog-moon/blob/main/devel/runtimepy/machine
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:48:18 -0700, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> And how do you iterate over the first n-1 elements of a list with n
> elements? This is what my code does:
>
> i = 0 while i < len(term.args) - 1:
> mark_term(term.args[i])
> i += 1 term = term.args[i]
>
> You can try yourse
But the end-result is still very weak:
% Wall 33810 ms, gc 980 ms, 284108 lips
This is below 1 million LIPS.
The JavaScript version of Dogelog does currently around 2 million LIPS.
And SWI-Prolog can do around 20 million LIPS.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 23:29
What could be slow, repeatedly requesting the "args"
field. Maybe I should do:
help = term.args
i = 0
while i < len(help) - 1:
mark_term(help[i])
i += 1
term = help[i]
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 20:48:31 UTC+2:
> And how do you iterate over the first n-
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 5:15 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> If you find a "wonky" spot, I can replace it by "non-wonky"
> code. I noticed some differences between Python Dicts
> and JavaScript objects. Python tends to throw more exceptions.
>
> So in Python I now do the following:
>
>peek =
There is a Python 3.8 compatible version here:
https://github.com/jburse/dogelog-moon/blob/main/devel/runtimepy/machine2.py
I have replaced match by if-then-else. So as to
be able to test with GraalVM. GraalVM is still faster
despite using if-then-else.
But GraalVM needs some time to JIT the cod
And how do you iterate over the first n-1 elements
of a list with n elements? This is what my code does:
i = 0
while i < len(term.args) - 1:
mark_term(term.args[i])
i += 1
term = term.args[i]
You can try yourself:
% python3
>>> foo = ["a", "b", "c"]
>>> i = 0
>>> while i < len(foo) - 1:
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:40:52 +, alister wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:31:48 -0700, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
>> There is a further problem with this:
>>
>>> for i,term in enumerate(term.args):
>>> mark_term(term.args[i])
>>
>> It should read:
>>
>> for i,help in enumerate(term.args
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 11:31:48 -0700, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> There is a further problem with this:
>
>> for i,term in enumerate(term.args):
>> mark_term(term.args[i])
>
> It should read:
>
> for i,help in enumerate(term.args):
> mark_term(help)
>
> But then i isn't need.
even Better
There is a further problem with this:
> for i,term in enumerate(term.args):
> mark_term(term.args[i])
It should read:
for i,help in enumerate(term.args):
mark_term(help)
But then i isn't need.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Mittwoch, 15. September 2021 um 20:22:50 UTC+2:
> Do you me
Well I would be more than happy if an experienced
programmer can fine tune my code. My programming
experience in Python is only 4 weeks.
Mostowski Collapse schrieb am Dienstag, 14. September 2021 um 14:56:35 UTC+2:
> The test harness, test cases and individual
> results for all test cases are fou
Do you mean, replace this:
i = 0
while i < len(term.args) - 1:
mark_term(term.args[i])
i += 1
term = term.args[i]
By this:
for i,term in enumerate(term.args):
mark_term(term.args[i])
This wouldn't be correct anymore. The
recursive call is only for the arguments
except for the last
On Wed, 15 Sep 2021 18:23:10 +0200, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
> I really wonder why my Python implementation is a factor 40 slower than
> my JavaScript implementation.
> Structurally its the same code.
>
> You can check yourself:
>
> Python Version:
> https://github.com/jburse/dogelog-moon/blob/
On Thu, 16 Sep 2021 03:26:39 +1000, Chris Angelico wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:17 AM Mostowski Collapse
> wrote:
>>
>> I really wonder why my Python implementation is a factor 40 slower than
>> my JavaScript implementation.
>> Structurally its the same code.
>>
>>
> Very hard to know. Your
If you find a "wonky" spot, I can replace it by "non-wonky"
code. I noticed some differences between Python Dicts
and JavaScript objects. Python tends to throw more exceptions.
So in Python I now do the following:
peek = kb.get(functor, NotImplemented)
if peek is not NotImplemented:
On Thu, Sep 16, 2021 at 3:17 AM Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> I really wonder why my Python implementation
> is a factor 40 slower than my JavaScript implementation.
> Structurally its the same code.
>
Very hard to know. Your code is detailed and complicated. Do they
produce identical results? Ar
I really wonder why my Python implementation
is a factor 40 slower than my JavaScript implementation.
Structurally its the same code.
You can check yourself:
Python Version:
https://github.com/jburse/dogelog-moon/blob/main/devel/runtimepy/machine.py
JavaScript Version:
https://github.com/jburse
Oops "speed did never hurt anybody". Don't be
evil, I am talking about unarmed drones.
See also:
Drone Programming With Python Course
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LmEcyQnfpDA
Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
I am not testing this use-case. But a related
use-case might highlight why speed did nev
I am not testing this use-case. But a related
use-case might highlight why speed did never
hurt anybody.
Lets say you program a flying drone with Python,
and the measurement is from the drone sensor
and communication systems.
Lets say you are using the idle time between
measurements for some com
us.
--- Joseph S.
Teledyne Confidential; Commercially Sensitive Business Data
-Original Message-
From: Mostowski Collapse
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2021 8:56 AM
To: python-list@python.org
Subject: Re: ANN: Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon (2021)
I am testing a Prolog
But even when using GraalVM Python, the
execution is still slow. Much slower
then the same Prolog interpreter written
in JavaScript. For JavaScript node.exe
I get much better results. I get these
results comparing to a few other new
Prolog systems as well:
TestDogelog Scryer Treall
I am testing a Prolog interpreter written
in Python. So fibonacci number routine is
written in Prolog and I am running the
fibonnaci number routine inside the
Prolog interpreter that is written in
Python. The factor 6x times faster of
GraalVM can be reproduced also for other
Prolog programs runn
On 9/13/2021 8:46 AM, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime
is annoyingly slow. So we gave it a try with
andother Python, and it was 6x times faster.
We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing
match in Python 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else.
Perf
The Standard Python version of Dogelog runtime
is annoyingly slow. So we gave it a try with
andother Python, and it was 6x times faster.
We could test GraalVM. We worked around the missing
match in Python 3.8 by replacing it with if-then-else.
Performance is a little better, we find:
/* Standard
More best kept secrets of Prolog: Pattern Matching
Everybody loves pattern matching. Languages
like Python, release 3.10, even provide it
now. There is now a match/case statement
in Python. But Prolog users will scratch their
head. Will my if-then-else be as fast as a
imperative switch jump tabl
Having fun with a new attended query answerer for
the Dogelog runtime. It can be bottled into a single Python
file, no server roundtrip, just ISO core Prolog in one
Python file, requires Python 3.10:
>python.exe toplevel.py
Dogelog Runtime, Prolog to the Moon, 0.9.3
(c) 1985-2021, XLOG Technolog
The world is getting ridiculous. termux seems to
not anymore be supported by Google Play because
of some Android 10 issues?
On the other hand there is this gem:
TI 84 Plus CE Python Edition Unboxing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVxP_Fki8Fc
LoL
Mostowski Collapse schrieb:
Yesterday we went
We = Me and my cat named socrates
The cat is a very good programmer:
def meow():
print("meow meow, Prolog is not only SWI-Prolog")
Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
On Sunday, 15 August 2021 at 14:43:42 UTC+2, Mostowski Collapse wrote:
Yesterday we went into a little programming binge
Who is this
Thats a factor 37.8 faster! I tested the a variant of
the Albufeira instructions Prolog VM aka ZIP, which
was also the inspiration for SWI-Prolog.
Open Source:
The Python Version of the Dogelog Runtime
https://github.com/jburse/dogelog-moon/tree/main/devel/runtimepy
The Python Test Harness
http
Woa! The JavaScript JIT compiler is quite impressive. I now
ported Dogelog runtime to Python as well, so that I can compare
JavaScript and Python, and tested without clause indexing:
between(L,H,L) :- L =< H.
between(L,H,X) :- L < H, Y is L+1, between(Y,H,X).
setup :- between(1,255,N), M is N//2
Yesterday we went into a little programming binge, despite there
was a free parade in Zurich. We could now already implement a transpiler
that targets Python. We simply took the transpiler main.p that targets
JavaScript and moded it into a new transpiler mainpy.p that targets
Python. The code is
78 matches
Mail list logo
