What a precise and useful synthesis you gives ! Thanks, Richard.
Le 8 sept. 2011 à 16:00, Richard Gaskin a écrit :
> Julian Ohrt wrote:
>
>> Is there any documentation how compiling of livecode works internally?
>> Is it a compiler which can produce native code (for Windows, Linux,
>> etc.)? Are the scripts packaged within the executable together with an
>> interpreter and interpreted at run time? Or is it more like a virtual
>> machine approach?
>
> Yes, I think it could be said that LiveCode has more in common with a virtual
> machine than almost any other metaphor.
>
> My understanding of the under-the-hood mechanics is very limited, but that
> won't stop me from trying. :)
>
> There are many layers to code execution and the languages which work at each
> level, which could be summarized as:
>
> - CPU instruction set/Object code: the intructions the processor is able to
> handle on its own, purely binary code; these are very primitive, consistent
> largely of moving stuff from one memory location to another, some basic math
> routines, etc. Most mortals never write machine code directly, relying on
> assemblers or or compilers to translate their more human-readable code into
> machine instructions.
>
> - Assembler: a way of working directly with the CPU instruction set, but
> with the advantage of using mnemonic labels for the instructions ("MOVE"
> rather than "0111010"). Generally speaking, there is usually a one-to-one
> relationship between Assembler instructions and machine instructions.
>
> - C: Designed as a substitute for Assembler, C allows you to execute many
> hundreds or even thousands of machine instructions with relatively little
> code, but it's still somewhat close to the CPU in terms of memory management,
> data types, options for register use, etc.
>
> - C++/C#/Objective C: a set of libraries and compilers based on C that
> implement object-oriented programming, executing many more instructions per
> line of code and usually involving frameworks that handle many of the common
> tasks an application will perform.
>
> - Scripting: Instructions written in very high-level languages which often
> completely automate things like memory management, type conversion, garbage
> collection, etc., triggering a great many machine instructions for each line
> of code, favoring developer convenience at a small cost to efficiency and
> memory.
>
> At each of these levels, the number of machine instructions triggered by a
> line of code is generally higher, meaning ever more of the work is done by
> the system rather than the programmer.
>
> Much of the LiveCode engine is written in C++ (with some portions in straight
> C, I believe), and the LiveCode scripting language is often compiled to an
> intermediary bytecode, which in the list above might be between C++ and
> Scripting.
>
> Bytecode is very different from true object code, in that object code
> represents the instructions as the CPU itself expects to handle them, while
> bytecode still needs an intermediary mechanism (such as the LiveCode engine)
> to translate it into machine instructions.
>
> Bytecode representations are much closer to those in machine instructions
> than scripts, making the runtime translation of them often as simple as
> jumping from one register to another from a densely packed and highly
> optimized lookup table.
>
> Moreover, bytecode represents a fairly small subset of the instructions
> compiled from your script; in many cases they jump directly into compiled
> object code in the engine, which was written in C++ and compiled to machine
> code using some of the best modern compilers. So in effect, as Osterhaut puts
> it in his seminal paper on scripting (see
> <http://www.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi-bin/papers/scripting.pdf>), good
> scripting languages are often just a sort of "glue" between true
> machine-compiled routines. Bytecode makes that glue smaller and more
> efficient.
>
> The scripts you write in LiveCode are what gets saved with the file (at least
> that's what I see when I look at a saved stack file; I can find the scripts
> but if the bytecode gets saved with it it's amazingly small because I can't
> find it at all).
>
> It's my understanding that when a stack is opened, its scripts are compiled
> to bytecode as the stack's object records are unpacked and the message path
> is set up. This "runtime compilation" involves parsing your script and
> translating that into binary tokens that execute much more efficiently. When
> executing, this bytecode is translated to direct machine instructions on the
> fly, but as you can see with LiveCode's blazing performance, neither the
> runtime compilation to bytecode nor the translation of the bytecode into
> machine instructions is particularly costly. And by separating the tasks,
> the more costly parsing of the script is done only once, which is one of the
> reasons why LC outperforms fully-interpreted systems (another reason is
> careful pruning of the lookup table used in that parsing and in the
> subsequent bytecode jumps, but that's another story).
>
> In fact, since so much of the actual execution takes place in the engine's
> machine-compiled code, performance for many tasks is on par with other
> systems where you have to wait for a compiler every time you change your
> code. :)
>
> There are exceptions to the general rule that script statements are
> translated to bytecode in advance of execution. For example, the "do"
> command and the "value" function both require parsing during execution, since
> they work with strings whose values cannot be known in advance, and therefore
> cannot be compiled in advance.
>
> But those tokens also make good examples of LiveCode's efficiency: while
> technically slower than alternative syntax which can be precompiled to
> bytecode, the time it takes the engine to parse those expressions and
> translate them into a form which can be executed is usually measured in
> microseconds, sometimes fractions of microseconds.
>
> Along those lines, compare the time it takes LiveCode to compile a script
> when you push the script editor's "Compile" button to compilation times in
> almost any other system. With each script compiled to bytecode separately,
> and with its means of doing so being rather well tuned over a great many
> years, it's almost instantaneous - you'll never wait for a progress bar when
> compiling in LiveCode. :)
>
>
> In summary, LiveCode attempts to find a sweet spot between raw performance
> and developer convenience. You could write faster-executing code in
> Assembler, but who would want to? Even using languages like C++ will often
> take orders of magnitude more development time to accomplish similar goals.
> LiveCode's two-step compilation allows for blazing fast performance with
> nearly unprecedented return on your development time.
>
> IMO, an almost ideal sweet spot indeed.
>
> --
> Richard Gaskin
> Fourth World
> LiveCode training and consulting: http://www.fourthworld.com
> Webzine for LiveCode developers: http://www.LiveCodeJournal.com
> LiveCode Journal blog: http://LiveCodejournal.com/blog.irv
>
> _______________________________________________
> use-livecode mailing list
> [email protected]
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
> preferences:
> http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
--
Pierre Sahores
mobile : 06 03 95 77 70
www.sahores-conseil.com
_______________________________________________
use-livecode mailing list
[email protected]
Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription
preferences:
http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/use-livecode
