On Fri, Jan 10, 2014 at 2:57 PM, F. B. <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On Sunday, November 17, 2013 8:04:49 PM UTC+1, David Li wrote:
>>
>> There's also the more speculative ideas of using Emscripten (example:
>> http://repl.it/M4w) or Portable Native Client to compile the Python
>> interpreter to JavaScript, then using that to run SymPy.
>
>
> I came across this project and, yes, I believe this is the right solution to
> run sympy in a browser (I didn't try but it's very promising as a project).
>
> Let me explain a bit. Emscripten is a tool to be used along with clang
> compiler to compile C/C++ code to Javascript. The Javascript code generated
> is very strange, there are only arrays and integers as variables. That kind
> of javascript follows the ASM.js standard, and is meant to resemble a
> low-level language such as assembler rather than a high-level language such
> as javascript.
>
> The code is likely to run on most browser. The point is that Firefox can
> detect when the code follows the AMS.js standard, and in such cases the
> javascript source code is not processed by the standard javascript
> interpreter, rather it is translated back to machine code, resulting in a
> compiled program to some degree similar to what a C/C++ compiler would have
> output. Performance is slightly less than by using a C/C++ compiler.
>
> This fast mode is currently supported by Firefox only, other browsers will
> still run AMS.js-compliant code, but will rely on their standard javascript
> interpreter, thus being slower. Google Chrome and Opera are currently
> working to introduce this feature into their browsers.
>
> The point is, that it is possible to compile CPython into Javascript, so as
> to have a 100% python compatible interpreter inside the browser. The link
> pointed out by David Li (http://repl.it/M4w) is CPython running inside the
> browser as javascript code. I would recommend to use Firefox, as other
> browsers will probably be very slow executing such an enormous amount of
> javascript with their standard interpreters.
Are you sure about that? I did the following test on my Mac (Chrome
32.0.1700.72 beta, Firefox 26.0):
def sieve(n):
primes = range(2, n+1)
for i in range(2, n+1):
for j in primes[:]:
if not j % i and j != i:
primes.remove(j)
return primes
import time
t = time.time();sieve(1000);print(time.time() - t)
(yes I know it's inefficient; my point was just to find something that
did something nontrivial that took a reasonable but nontrivial amount
of time to complete).
In Chrome, I get 0.555000066757; in Firefox I get 2.47399997711. I
also tried Safai 7.0.1 (I get 4.63800001144) and Opera because you
mentioned it (version 12.16, I get 4.44400000572).
So maybe Chrome beta already has some of the ASM stuff in it, but
whatever it is, it's clearly the fastest here.
For reference, when I run it in IPython in my terminal I get
0.0159571170807. So it's still 30 times slower.
Aaron Meurer
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "sympy" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sympy" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sympy.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
