The Stalin Scheme compiler can be obtained here: http://cobweb.ecn.purdue.edu/~qobi/software.html
It is a batch-mode-only compiler, meaning it lacks the interactive aspect that makes languages like LISP and Ruby so nice to use. The optimizations inside the Stalin compiler are quite advanced though not as much so as the stuff inside the Java supercompiler I worked with a while back http://www.supercompilers.com This sort of thing can really speed up numerical, mathematical code quite a lot. Using the Java supercompiler one can get Java code that runs 50 times faster than comparable C code, for various mathematical benchmarks (e.g. the FFT, sorting, etc.). Stalin also has an advanced garbage collector, more so than existing JVM's for example. In practice Stalin is a bitch to use, due to being a slow compiler, having no interactive mode, having no debugger, and other pragmatic irritations. It also leaves out some parts of Scheme. In short, Stalin is a research compiler and probably not slick enough for practical commercial use, but it demonstrates the principle that an optimized LISP compiler can kick ass in batch mode. Just as the Java supercompiler (in spite of its incompleteness at the moment) demonstrates the principle that supercompilation can make Java vastly faster than C++. The reason C++ is the best approach for high-performance computing right now is not anything fundamental -- it's just a matter of the practicalities of currently existing technology. If someone put sufficient $$ or time into making kick-ass optimizing compilers and supercompilers for nicer languages, we'd all be better off. But that doesn't seem to happening at a very rapid rate... And I'm personally more interested in pushing toward AGI than in improving programming language infrastructure... -- Ben G On 4/10/07, Eric Baum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'd commend to the LISP hackers' attention the compiler "Stalin" by Jeff Syskind, who last I knew was at Purdue. I'm uncertain the extent to which the compiler is available, but I imagine if you look around (for example find Syskind's home page) you will find papers or or pointers. My erstwhile collaborator Kevin Lang, initially a skeptic on the subject, ran extensive tests on Stalin and concluded the compiled code was substantially faster than compiled C and C++, even on problems where this was quite surprising. It's possible Kevin published something on these tests. The above is about all I know on the subject, so please don't ask for more details. The above was roughly 10 yrs ago. At the time, both Syskind and Kevin (and me) were at the NEC Research Institute. Presumably there is a catch or you would all be using Stalin ;^( Philip> On 3/23/07, Samantha Atknis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> 8,Fast where most of the processing is done. >> >> In the language or in things written in the language or both? Lisp >> has been interpreted and compiled simultaneously and nearly >> seamlessly for 20 years and has efficiency approaching compiled C >> in many problem domains. Philip> Samantha, you need to provide me with references if you want Philip> me to believe this. No LISP compiler has ever been optimized Philip> to any serious degree AFAIK. The nature of the language makes Philip> it difficult to write efficient code in the first place. And Philip> I suspect that these "many problem domains" don't include any Philip> that involve numeric calculations. ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
