Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Andre van Tonder
(25 Jul 2006 20:25 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest Alex Shinn (26 Jul 2006 02:04 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Michael Sperber
(26 Jul 2006 05:03 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Alan Watson
(26 Jul 2006 08:40 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Michael Sperber
(26 Jul 2006 09:02 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
bear
(04 Sep 2006 17:31 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Andre van Tonder
(26 Jul 2006 15:12 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Michael Sperber
(26 Jul 2006 15:35 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Andre van Tonder
(26 Jul 2006 16:23 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest
Michael Sperber
(27 Jul 2006 15:51 UTC)
|
Re: Some comments relating to ICFP contest Alex Shinn 26 Jul 2006 02:04 UTC
On 7/26/06, Andre van Tonder <xxxxxx@now.het.brown.edu> wrote: > I have a few comments based on my experience in trying to implement the > ICFP contest virtual machine specification using Scheme. I found that most > Schemes were pretty much useless for this particular application I also participated in the contest, and started with Scheme but ended up using C (the VM was much shorter and easier to express in C, apart from being faster). After the contest I tweaked my Scheme implementation, and when compiled with Chicken Scheme it was only 10x slower than C, using only R5RS and SRFIs 4 and 60. This was mostly thanks to using a 64-bit machine where I could do 32-bit arithmetic by masking out the high bits after each numeric operation: (bitwise-and #xFFFFFFFF expr). On a 32-bit machine almost every value would have been a bignum, totally destroying performance. This seems much more common and convenient than the aribtrary (and variable among different implementations) modulo arithmetic provided by the `fixnum' procedures of SRFI-77. -- Alex