On Tue, Apr 16, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Loup Vaillant-David <[email protected]>wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 12:15:10PM -0700, David Barbour wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 15, 2013 at 11:57 AM, David Barbour <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > 90% or more of code will be glue-code, but it doesn't all need to be > > hand-written. I am certainly pursuing such techniques in my current > > language development. > > Err, I may sound nitpicky, but when I say "code", I usually mean > *source* code. Automatically generated code counts only if it becomes > the preferred medium for modification. Most of the time, it isn't: > you'd tweak the generation procedure instead. > > So, maybe it's not hopeless. Maybe we do have ways to reduce the > amount (if not the proportion) of glue code. > If you have enough setup, parameters, and holes to fill for the generation procedure, then that just becomes a higher layer of glue code. You can't expect huge savings even with automatic methods. OTOH, almost any reduction is worthwhile. One way to think of '90% glue code' is "I'm 10% efficient". So if we cut it down to 70% glue code, that's like tripling efficiency - a naive analysis, unfortunately, but a motivating one. > > Now, reducing the hardware ressources (CPU, memory…) needed to *run* > glue code is another matter. > Ooh, that's where we can really win, if we approach it right - supporting deep, cross-layer optimizations, fusing intermediate steps, optimize memoization or caching, content distribution networks. But we need to model glue code in higher level languages to achieve such things automatically. Regards, Dave
_______________________________________________ fonc mailing list [email protected] http://vpri.org/mailman/listinfo/fonc
