💾 Archived View for mediocregopher.com › posts › ginger-a-small-vm-update.gmi captured on 2024-05-26 at 14:49:50. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
⬅️ Previous capture (2024-05-12)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
This post has been translated from it's original markdown format, if it seems busted it might appear better over HTTP:
https://mediocregopher.com/posts/ginger-a-small-vm-update
It works gooder now.
During some recent traveling I had to be pulled away from cryptic-net work for a while. Instead I managed to spend a few free hours, and the odd international plane ride, to fix the ginger vm.
The problem, as it stood, was that it only functioned "correctly" in a very accidental sense. I knew from the moment that I published it that it would get mostly rewritten immediately.
And so here we are, with a rewritten vm and some new realizations.
The `Operation` type was previously defined like so:
type Operation interface {
Perform([]Thunk, Operation) (Thunk, error)
}
I'm not going to explain it, because it's both confusing and wrong.
One thing that is helpful in a refactor, especially in a strongly typed language, is to tag certain interfaces as being axiomatic, and conforming the rest of your changes around those. If those interfaces are simple enough to apply broadly *and* accurately describe desired behavior, they will help pre-decide many difficult decisions you'd otherwise have to make.
So with that mind, I tagged `Operation` as being an axiomatic interface, given that ginger is aiming to be a functional language (and I'm wondering if I should just rename `Operation` to `Function`, while I'm at it). The new definition of the interface is:
type Operation interface {
Perform(Value) Value
}
`Operation` takes and argument and returns a result, it could not possibly be boiled down any further. By holding `Operation` to this definition and making decisions from there, it was pretty clear what the next point of attack was.
The reason that `Operation` had previously been defined in such a fucked up way was to support the `if` and `recur` `Operation`s, as if they weren't different than any other `Operation`s. But truthfully they are different, as they are actually control flow constructs, and so require capabilities that no other `Operation` would be allowed to use anyway.
The new implementation reflects this. `if` and `recur` are now both handled directly by the compiler, while global `Operation`s like `tupEl` are implementations of the `Operation` interface.
The previous iteration of the vm hadn't distinguished between a compile step and a run step. In a way it did both at the same time, by abusing the `Thunk` type. Separating the two steps, and ditching the `Thunk` type in the process, was the next major change in the refactoring.
The compile step can be modeled as a function which takes a `Graph` and returns an `Operation`, where the `Graph`'s `in` and `out` names correspond to the `Operation`'s argument and return, respectively. The run step then reads an input from the user, calls the compiled `Operation` with that input, and outputs the result back to the user.
As an example, given the following program:
we want to compile an `Operation` which accepts a number and returns the greater of that number and 6. I'm going to use anonymous go functions to demonstrate the anatomy of the compiled `Operation`, as that's what's happening in the current compiler anyway.
// After compilation, this function will be in-memory and usable as an
// Operation.
sixOrMore := func(in Value) Value {
max := func(in Value) Value {
a := tupEl(in, 0)
b := tupEl(in, 1)
if a > b {
return a
}
return b
}
return max(in, 6)
}
Or at least, this is what I tried for *initially*. What I found was that it was easier, in the context of how `graph.MapReduce` works, to make even the leaf values, e.g. `in`, `0`, `1`, and `6`, map to `Operations` as well. `in` is replaced with an anonymous function which returns its argument, and the numbers are replaced with anonymous functions which ignore their argument and always return their respective number.
So the compiled `Operation` looks more like this:
// After compilation, this function will be in-memory and usable as an
// Operation.
sixOrMore := func(in Value) Value {
max := func(in Value) Value {
a := tupEl(
func(in Value) Value { return in }(in),
func(_ Value) Value { return 0}(in),
)
b := tupEl(
func(in Value) Value { return in }(in),
func(_ Value) Value { return 1}(in),
)
if a > b {
return a
}
return b
}
return max(
func(in Value) Value { return in }(in),
func(_ Value) Value { return 6}(in),
)
}
This added layer of indirection for all leaf values is not great for performance, and there's probably further refactoring which could be done to make the result look more like the original ideal.
To make things a bit messier, even that representation isn't quite accurate to the current result. The compiler doesn't properly de-duplicate work when following name values. In other words, everytime `a` is referenced within `max`, the `Operation` which the compiler produces will recompute `a` via `tupEl`.
So the *actual* compiled `Operation` looks more like this:
// After compilation, this function will be in-memory and usable as an
// Operation.
sixOrMore := func(in Value) Value {
return func(in Value) Value {
if tupEl(func(in Value) Value { return in }(in), func(_ Value) Value { return 0}(in)) >
tupEl(func(in Value) Value { return in }(in), func(_ Value) Value { return 1}(in)) {
return tupEl(func(in Value) Value { return in }(in), func(_ Value) Value { return 0}(in))
}
return tupEl(func(in Value) Value { return in }(in), func(_ Value) Value { return 1}(in))
}(
func(in Value) Value { return in }(in),
func(_ Value) Value { return 6}(in),
)
}
Clearly, there's some optimization to be done still.
While it's still not perfect, the new implementation is far and away better than the old. This can be seen just in the performance for the fibonacci program:
# Previous VM $ time ./eval "$(cat examples/fib.gg)" 10 55 real 0m8.737s user 0m9.871s sys 0m0.309s
# New VM $ time ./eval "$(cat examples/fib.gg)" 50 12586269025 real 0m0.003s user 0m0.003s sys 0m0.000s
They're not even comparable.
========================================
Published 2022-04-03 by mediocregopher
This post is part of a series!
Next in the series: Ginger 2023 Update
Prevous in the series: Ginger Names
========================================