[Chicken-users] Possibly of interest to some, I put a couple of my chicken based projects online ...

[matt welland]

I've been waiting for some free time to "clean it up" before making some
of my projects public but obviously that day will never come. So, for
better or for worse I've put a few of my little projects at
http://www.kiatoa.com/fossils/opensrc just in case they are of use to
someone. 

Cheers,

Matt
-=-



___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hello World execution time

[Bobby Powers]

I got similar, but slightly different results (Fedora 14, 64-bit, core i7):

(time per run in wall seconds)
c: 0.001086
bash: 0.002742
py: 0.000336
scm: 0.005199
pl: 0.000344

so bash slightly beat out perl, and chicken came in last of the 5.  Didn't
bother with mono or java.

Source available:
https://github.com/bobbyp/helloworlds

so on a *nix box:
$ git clone git://github.com/bobbyp/helloworlds.git
$ cd helloworlds
$ make

and it should give you a report shortly.

BUT, I think these tests lie.  I do the following:
$ strace -C -ttt ./hello.scm 2> chicken_report
$ strace -C -ttt ./hello.py 2> python_report

And strace nicely shows me for the chicken binary:
% time seconds  usecs/call callserrors syscall
-- --- --- - - 
100.000.64   319   mmap
  0.000.00   0 6   read
  0.000.00   0 1   write
  0.000.00   012 6 open
  0.000.00   0 6   close
  0.000.00   0 3 3 stat
  0.000.00   0 8   fstat
  0.000.00   0 1   lseek
  0.000.00   0 8   mprotect
  0.000.00   0 2   munmap
  0.000.00   0 6   brk
  0.000.00   0 1 1 access
  0.000.00   0 1   execve
  0.000.00   0 2   getrusage
  0.000.00   0 1   arch_prctl
-- --- --- - - 
100.000.647710 total

So, only 0.64 seconds spent in the kernel (Python had 0.000626, an order
of magnitide more).  I think the reporting of execution time may be skewed
by scheduling or something funky like that.  That, or python (and perl)'s
runtime is a _lot_ faster to initialize than chicken. Is that possible?

yours,
Bobby

On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 8:26 PM, Daniel Aquino wrote:

> Here's one of the links:
> http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simple_unix_tools
>
>
>
> On 3/13/11, Daniel Aquino  wrote:
> > Haskell should be just as fast as c especially for something that
> > basic.  There is a whole set of common unix utilities implemented in
> > very short one liners.
> >
> > On 3/13/11, John J Foerch  wrote:
> >> Tobia Conforto  writes:
> >>> "Hello,
> >>>
> >>> World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but
> >>> it's
> >>> pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs /
> random
> >>> commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead
> of
> >>> different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own
> >>> curiosity
> >>> and I thought you might like the results.
> >>>
> >>> Rules:
> >>>
> >>>   * the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;
> >>>   * no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the
> >>> language
> >>> are
> >>> allowed;
> >>>   * no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source,
> >>> bytecode
> >>> or machine language as it may be.)
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it
> >>> up, and
> >>> then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the
> median
> >>> more
> >>> than the mean, when measuring things.)
> >>>
> >>> [cid]
> >>>
> >>> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are
> >>> poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't
> >>> bother
> >>> asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I
> >>> would
> >>> have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its
> >>> merits,
> >>> but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and
> >>> skewed the
> >>> graph badly ;-)
> >>>
> >>> So that pretty much settles the question for me!
> >>>
> >>> cheers,
> >>> Tobia
> >>
> >>
> >> This is very interesting.  I would be interested to see haskell among
> >> the set.
> >>
> >> --
> >> John Foerch
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> Chicken-users mailing list
> >> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> >> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
> >>
> >
> > --
> > Sent from my mobile device
> >
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hello World execution time

[Daniel Aquino]

Here's one of the links: http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simple_unix_tools



On 3/13/11, Daniel Aquino  wrote:
> Haskell should be just as fast as c especially for something that
> basic.  There is a whole set of common unix utilities implemented in
> very short one liners.
>
> On 3/13/11, John J Foerch  wrote:
>> Tobia Conforto  writes:
>>> "Hello,
>>>
>>> World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but
>>> it's
>>> pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs / random
>>> commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead of
>>> different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own
>>> curiosity
>>> and I thought you might like the results.
>>>
>>> Rules:
>>>
>>>   * the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;
>>>   * no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the
>>> language
>>> are
>>> allowed;
>>>   * no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source,
>>> bytecode
>>> or machine language as it may be.)
>>>
>>>
>>> I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it
>>> up, and
>>> then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the median
>>> more
>>> than the mean, when measuring things.)
>>>
>>> [cid]
>>>
>>> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are
>>> poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't
>>> bother
>>> asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I
>>> would
>>> have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its
>>> merits,
>>> but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and
>>> skewed the
>>> graph badly ;-)
>>>
>>> So that pretty much settles the question for me!
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> Tobia
>>
>>
>> This is very interesting.  I would be interested to see haskell among
>> the set.
>>
>> --
>> John Foerch
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Chicken-users mailing list
>> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
>> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>>
>
> --
> Sent from my mobile device
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hello World execution time

[Daniel Aquino]

Haskell should be just as fast as c especially for something that
basic.  There is a whole set of common unix utilities implemented in
very short one liners.

On 3/13/11, John J Foerch  wrote:
> Tobia Conforto  writes:
>> "Hello,
>>
>> World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but
>> it's
>> pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs / random
>> commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead of
>> different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own
>> curiosity
>> and I thought you might like the results.
>>
>> Rules:
>>
>>   * the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;
>>   * no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the language
>> are
>> allowed;
>>   * no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source,
>> bytecode
>> or machine language as it may be.)
>>
>>
>> I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it
>> up, and
>> then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the median
>> more
>> than the mean, when measuring things.)
>>
>> [cid]
>>
>> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are
>> poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't bother
>> asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I
>> would
>> have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its
>> merits,
>> but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and
>> skewed the
>> graph badly ;-)
>>
>> So that pretty much settles the question for me!
>>
>> cheers,
>> Tobia
>
>
> This is very interesting.  I would be interested to see haskell among
> the set.
>
> --
> John Foerch
>
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Ivan Raikov]

  Of course, you will always be able to install the readline egg. This
is about providing minimal readline functionality to new users who don't
know yet about chicken-install, and who run csi expecting to have
command history and perhaps completion available to them. I don't think
we have to reinvent all of the readline functionality.

   -Ivan

Evan Hanson  writes:

>> Chicken already has all the bindings to the core C I/O
>> functions, so it might not be too much work to implement some minimal
>> command-line history.
>> 
>>-Ivan
>
> Keep in mind, though, that readline provides a lot more than just history
> (like completion, or my beloved vi mode...). Seems like a lot of functionality
> to reinvent IMO... Though perhaps editline or linenoise provide these?
>
> Evan

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Evan Hanson]

> Chicken already has all the bindings to the core C I/O
> functions, so it might not be too much work to implement some minimal
> command-line history.
> 
>-Ivan

Keep in mind, though, that readline provides a lot more than just history
(like completion, or my beloved vi mode...). Seems like a lot of functionality
to reinvent IMO... Though perhaps editline or linenoise provide these?

Evan

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] ezxdisp install on OS X

[Tim Sally]

Hi,

I confirmed this on my machine and filed a ticket here:
https://bugs.call-cc.org/ticket/527.

Tim

On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM, David N Murray  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I couldn't chicken-install ezxdisp on my Mac.  It failed with the
> complaint
>
>  /usr/local/bin/csc -feature compiling-extension -setup-mode    -s -O3
> -d1 -X easyffi ezxdisp.scm -C -w ezxdisp-x11.c -C "-I.
> -I/usr/X11R6/include" -L "-L -L/usr/X11R6/lib -lX11" -j ezxdisp
> ld: -L must be immediately followed by a directory path (no space)
> collect2: ld returned 1 exit status
>
> My workaround was to -retrieve the egg, fix ezxdisp.setup to remove the
> first "-L" and it installed fine.
>
> I'm guessing this is a gcc problem.  The mac is using 4.2.1 from XCode.  I
> had no problems installing the egg on my linux box, which is using 4.4.4.
> The gcc 4.4.4 info page doesn't document what "-L" does without a
> directory.  Looks like it's probably ignoring it.
>
> TIA,
> Dave
>
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Ivan Raikov]

  Apparently, there is also a Common Lisp implementation of readline
(MIT-licensed):

http://common-lisp.net/project/linedit/

It looks baroque, but perhaps bits and pieces can be scavenged for a
minimal Chicken readline.

  -Ivan

John Cowan  writes:

>
> 1) We could use editline (aka libedit) by default rather than readline.
>
> 2) We could supply two versions of the csi main program, one with
> readline support under the GPL, and one without under the BSD.  This is
> what Pure  does.  It has to be done by
> the copyright holder, because a licensee can't just remove the feature
> from a program that requires it to be under the GPL and make it not GPL
> any more, but the licensor can violate their own license if they want.

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Ivan Raikov]

  We should not limit ourselves to libraries written in C! Ocaml has the
same issue with readline, since it uses a funky French license, and one
of their solutions is ledit, an rlwrap-like program implemented entirely
in Ocaml. Chicken already has all the bindings to the core C I/O
functions, so it might not be too much work to implement some minimal
command-line history.

   -Ivan

John Cowan  writes:

> Moritz Heidkamp scripsit:
>
>> One thing almost
>> every participant wondered about was that csi didn't provide readline
>> support out of the box. 
>
> The answer is that supplying readline by default would require csi to
> be released under the GPL.  There are two ways around this problem that
> I can think of:
>
> 1) We could use editline (aka libedit) by default rather than readline.
>
> 2) We could supply two versions of the csi main program, one with
> readline support under the GPL, and one without under the BSD.  This is
> what Pure  does.  It has to be done by
> the copyright holder, because a licensee can't just remove the feature
> from a program that requires it to be under the GPL and make it not GPL
> any more, but the licensor can violate their own license if they want.

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Joe Python]

In Solaris 10, you can use enhance which was built using the tecla library(
http://www.astro.caltech.edu/~mcs/tecla/index.html)



On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 5:19 PM, Christian Kellermann
wrote:

> * John Cowan  [110313 21:33]:
> > Moritz Heidkamp scripsit:
> >
> > > One thing almost
> > > every participant wondered about was that csi didn't provide readline
> > > support out of the box.
> >
> > The answer is that supplying readline by default would require csi to
> > be released under the GPL.  There are two ways around this problem that
> > I can think of:
> >
> > 1) We could use editline (aka libedit) by default rather than readline.
> >
> > 2) We could supply two versions of the csi main program, one with
> > readline support under the GPL, and one without under the BSD.  This is
> > what Pure  does.  It has to be done by
> > the copyright holder, because a licensee can't just remove the feature
> > from a program that requires it to be under the GPL and make it not GPL
> > any more, but the licensor can violate their own license if they want.
> >
>
> These are all valid points. I would like to add some already existing
> possibilities:
>
> 1. external tools like rlwrap
> 2. the readline egg
> 3. the linenoise egg
>
> I am also not sure if we break some existing code by enabling a
> unit that fiddles with stdin by default.
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Christian
>
> ___
> Chicken-users mailing list
> Chicken-users@nongnu.org
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users
>
___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Re: Hello World execution time

[John J Foerch]

Tobia Conforto  writes:
> "Hello,
>
> World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but it's
> pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs / random
> commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead of
> different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own curiosity
> and I thought you might like the results.
>
> Rules:
>
>   * the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;
>   * no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the language are
> allowed;
>   * no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source, bytecode
> or machine language as it may be.)
>
>
> I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it up, 
> and
> then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the median more
> than the mean, when measuring things.)
>
> [cid]
>
> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are
> poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't bother
> asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I would
> have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its merits,
> but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and skewed 
> the
> graph badly ;-)
>
> So that pretty much settles the question for me!
>
> cheers,
> Tobia


This is very interesting.  I would be interested to see haskell among
the set.

-- 
John Foerch


___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Christian Kellermann]

* John Cowan  [110313 21:33]:
> Moritz Heidkamp scripsit:
> 
> > One thing almost
> > every participant wondered about was that csi didn't provide readline
> > support out of the box. 
> 
> The answer is that supplying readline by default would require csi to
> be released under the GPL.  There are two ways around this problem that
> I can think of:
> 
> 1) We could use editline (aka libedit) by default rather than readline.
> 
> 2) We could supply two versions of the csi main program, one with
> readline support under the GPL, and one without under the BSD.  This is
> what Pure  does.  It has to be done by
> the copyright holder, because a licensee can't just remove the feature
> from a program that requires it to be under the GPL and make it not GPL
> any more, but the licensor can violate their own license if they want.
> 

These are all valid points. I would like to add some already existing
possibilities:

1. external tools like rlwrap
2. the readline egg
3. the linenoise egg

I am also not sure if we break some existing code by enabling a
unit that fiddles with stdin by default.

Kind regards,

Christian

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] Hello World execution time

[John Cowan]

Tobia Conforto scripsit:

> "Hello, World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of
> benchmarks, but it's pretty important when you are writing shell scripts
> / cron jobs / random commandline utilities. It also serves to compare
> the startup overhead of different execution environments. So I ran this
> benchmark for my own curiosity and I thought you might like the results.

It's astonishing that bash is faster than anything but C.

> I like the median more than the mean, when measuring things.)

Naturally.  If you only get to provide one statistic, make it the median.
(If you get to provide two, make it the mean and the standard deviation.)

> The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java
> are poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. 

Actually both Mono and Java are JIT-compiled, but such a short program
doesn't give the JIT time to warm up.

-- 
John Cowan  co...@ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders.
--Hal Abelson

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[John Cowan]

Moritz Heidkamp scripsit:

> One thing almost
> every participant wondered about was that csi didn't provide readline
> support out of the box. 

The answer is that supplying readline by default would require csi to
be released under the GPL.  There are two ways around this problem that
I can think of:

1) We could use editline (aka libedit) by default rather than readline.

2) We could supply two versions of the csi main program, one with
readline support under the GPL, and one without under the BSD.  This is
what Pure  does.  It has to be done by
the copyright holder, because a licensee can't just remove the feature
from a program that requires it to be under the GPL and make it not GPL
any more, but the licensor can violate their own license if they want.

-- 
John Cowan  http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
One time I called in to the central system and started working on a big
thick 'sed' and 'awk' heavy duty data bashing script.  One of the geologists
came by, looked over my shoulder and said 'Oh, that happens to me too.
Try hanging up and phoning in again.'  --Beverly Erlebacher

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

Re: [Chicken-users] German Lisp Workshop at the CCC in Cologne

[Moritz Heidkamp]

Dear Chickeneers,

with the workshop having been yesterday I thought I'd report back on how
it went. First of all I'd like to thank the CCC Cologne for providing
the space and equipment for the workshop, it's always nice to be a guest
in your rooms. Also thanks to all participants for attending despite the
very nice weather -- I was a bit afraid that I'd spend the afternoon
with only one or two people but after all about 15 showed up which was
even more than I expected!

I started the meeting by giving an introductionary talk about Lisp and
its history which took about an hour (the slides are available at
http://moritz.twoticketsplease.de/files/lisp.pdf). Afterwards I
encouraged everyone to try for themselves what was heard before. Most
people chose Chicken as their Lisp since that was what I presented and I
could offer the most substantial help for, of course :-) This mostly
went very well and I could resolve most issues that arose (we even
managed to get Chicken running on a Windows 7 machine with the help of
the excellent chicken-iup installer). A few people were inclined to give
Emacs a try after I quickly demonstrated how paredit and SLIME
integration really help writing parenthesized code. One thing almost
every participant wondered about was that csi didn't provide readline
support out of the box. Installing and configuring the readline egg is
easy (although we had serious trouble to install libreadline on one of
the OS X machines, evantually gave up and just went with the linenoise
egg) but it seems to be considered common-place and in fact most other
interactive interpreters come with some readline-like support by
default. Maybe it's worth investigating what could be done about that at
the Chicken Weekend!

After a while everyone was up and running and started hacking away:
familiarizing themselves with the syntax, trying to port some code they
had written in other languages, solving Project Euler problems etc. The
test egg was enjoyed by a few attendees and some even gave coops a spin
(I pointed them to Christian's excellent introductionary article about
it at http://pestilenz.org/~ckeen/blog/posts/oo-in-scheme.html which did
quite a good job of explaining the basic concepts). I had the general
impression that most people really tried to understand what I was trying
to present at the beginning - what is so special about Lisp and why it
is so much fun to program. After 5 hours of hacking and some intensive
discussion I was pretty exhausted; but seeing that it seemed to have
caught on for at least some participants more than made up for it :-)

Some people approached me to institute some kind of Lisp user group for
meeting regularly which I am seriously considering. More on that soon!
Also, I got invited to hold the workshop again at the CCC FFM
(https://ccc-ffm.de/) in the near future. I'll let you know if and
when. Thanks for the invitation!

Also, if anyone would like to do something like this in their area, feel
free to contact me about it and/or re-use my presentation material!

All the best
Moritz

___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users

[Chicken-users] Hello World execution time

[Tobia Conforto]

"Hello,World execution time"—may not be the most meaningful of benchmarks, but it's pretty important when you are writing shell scripts / cron jobs / random commandline utilities. It also serves to compare the startup overhead of different execution environments. So I ran this benchmark for my own curiosity and I thought you might like the results.Rules:the program should print "Hello, World!\n" and exit cleanly;no "benchmark modes" that would hinder real-world use of the language are allowed;no -e allowed: each program should run from its own file (source, bytecode or machine language as it may be.)I ran these on a fast, otherwise idle machine, doing 10 runs to warm it up, and then taking the median real time of 101 runs. (So yes, I like the median more than the mean, when measuring things.)The choice of languages is arbitrary. C is compiled, Mono and Java are poor-man's-compiled, the rest is interpreted. As for Chicken, don't bother asking: there is but a 2ms difference between csi and csc -O4 -block. I would have included Clojure, as I find the language itself not without its merits, but the current implementation is 4 times slower than plain Java and skewed the graph badly ;-)So that pretty much settles the question for me!cheers,Tobia___
Chicken-users mailing list
Chicken-users@nongnu.org
http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-users