Also note that the Racket + actually performs two different kinds of addition (exact or inexact/floating point) depending on the arguments passed to it:
Why? I'm not sure I understand the extreme dislike of overloaded operators. Not that this comment is necessarily directed at yours, but the concept in general.
If it's because of efficiency, the racket operator is probably fairly efficient anyway, and might even do some compile time type checking to see whether the result is likely to be one or the other.
At some point, instead of having nice operators to encapsulate the alternatives and paying the cost of minimal dynamic checking (if any), you'll end up building your own much more expensive explicit dynamic checking instead.
Also, I'm not sure how this urge for separation of functions can contribute much to arc's main goals of brevity and simplicity. Having one function with a short name to handle many very closely related operations makes plenty of sense most of the time, and lets you use plain + instead of +-float and +-int.
Oh, for myself I routinely use + for joining lists, so I'm firmly in the general purpose + camp.
My point was merely that whatever argument someone may have for preferring an arithmetic-only +, there is an isomorphic argument for more specifically preferring an exact-+ or a floating-+, and so if the former is applicable to your situation you may also want to consider if the latter also applies.
Hi, finally replying to this thread. So, I, a long time ago, found that the + function was allocating memory every time it was called; this a) made things slower than they had to be (according to my old thread, incrementing a variable was half as fast as it should have been), b) triggered garbage collections, which were annoying pauses at the REPL, and c) triggered garbage collections when I was doing, like, (time:repeat 100000 <test procedure>) (note that "repeat" is implemented with "for", which uses +).
The problem with (c) is that it made the time to completion rather variable (depending on whether a GC happened, or sometimes on how many GCs happened), so the results were difficult to interpret. It interfered with my measuring and comparing the performance of my procedures.
So it annoyed me. And I found that just using the Scheme + fixed it, stopped the malloc'ing. To know that this crap was caused by a feature I didn't use and that Paul Graham had seemed to declare was a bad idea, a feature that seemed it shouldn't even be there anymore... I took it upon myself to eradicate it from the source code. And I felt better afterwards.
But now this case-lambda version of + (which is polymorphic) seems to not malloc at all, and a bit of testing by me indicated it performed approximately as well as the raw Racket +; I couldn't see any difference. (Btw, I think I perceived that Racket doesn't malloc for argument lists when you call "apply" or something, but it does malloc--probably copies the arglist--if you access it with car or cdr.)
So polymorphic + is no longer so obnoxious to me, and I no longer feel the need to eradicate it. I'd probably still prefer to use "string" to join/coerce to strings and "join" to join lists, myself, and I'd probably prefer "join" as a generic join operator. But I won't kill concatenate-+ on sight. Since overloading itself seems not to be the cause of the performance problems, I might warm to the idea... maybe overload + for my polynomials--or for matrices, I've been playing with them recently--though I've actually only multiplied them, never added them--perhaps I should overload *...
You may find the following definitions extremely useful. (I do.) Evolved from my previous "mem-use" macro.
;note that "memory" = $.current-memory-use
; and "current-gc-milliseconds", "current-process-milliseconds"
; were supplied in ac.scm
(= gc-msec current-gc-milliseconds
process-msec current-process-milliseconds)
(mac utime body
(w/uniq (gtime ggc gmem)
`(with (,gtime (msec) ,ggc (gc-msec) ,gmem (memory))
(do1 (do ,@body)
(prn "time: " (- (msec) ,gtime)
" gc: " (- (gc-msec) ,ggc)
" mem: " (- (memory) ,gmem))))))
(= time utime)
You might expect some memory or time overhead just from using this, but in fact there doesn't seem to be any:
arc> (time:- 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 0 ;zero overhead
-1
;now I copy the old definition of + from ac.scm to clipboard
arc> (= + (eval:list '$ (read:pbpaste)))
#<procedure>
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 352 ;probably from JIT-compiling +
3
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 64
3
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 64 ;by now this is clearly the usual mem-use
3
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 64
3
arc> (= + $.+) ;Racket +
#<procedure:+>
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 0
3
arc> (time:+ 1 2)
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 0
3
;now I copy this definition to clipboard:
(define (ar-+2 x y)
(cond ((char-or-string? x)
(string-append (ar-coerce x 'string) (ar-coerce y 'string)))
((and (arc-list? x) (arc-list? y))
(ac-niltree (append (ar-nil-terminate x) (ar-nil-terminate y))))
(#t (+ x y))))
arc> (eval:list '$ (read:pbpaste))
#<void>
arc> (time ($.ar-+2 1 2))
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 416 ;JIT
3
arc> (time ($.ar-+2 1 2))
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 0 ;so it allocates zero memory
3
arc> (time ($.ar-+2 1 2))
time: 0 gc: 0 mem: 0
3
Now for more playing around. A Racket loop that counts to 1 million.
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 1000000) 't (loop (+ n 1))))
time: 3 gc: 0 mem: 760
t
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 1000000) 't (loop (+ n 1))))
time: 5 gc: 0 mem: 920 ;kinda weird, it alternates 760 and 920
t
;now up to 10 million
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 10000000) 't (loop (+ n 1))))
time: 36 gc: 0 mem: 760
t
;now we test ar-+2
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 10000000) 't (loop (ar-+2 n 1))))
time: 1020 gc: 0 mem: 1096
t
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 10000000) 't (loop (ar-+2 n 1))))
time: 1019 gc: 0 mem: 776
Apparently it makes a significant difference (30x) inside a tight Racket loop. For fun, let's try the unsafe ops too.
arc> ($:require racket/unsafe/ops)
#<void>
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (unsafe-fx> n 10000000) 't (loop (unsafe-fx+ n 1))))
time: 28 gc: 0 mem: 760
t
Hmm, I had an idea. Put the number check first. New definition:
(define (ar-+2 x y)
(cond ((number? x) (+ x y))
((char-or-string? x)
(string-append (ar-coerce x 'string) (ar-coerce y 'string)))
((and (arc-list? x) (arc-list? y))
(ac-niltree (append (ar-nil-terminate x) (ar-nil-terminate y))))
(#t (+ x y))))
arc> (eval:list '$ (read:pbpaste))
#<void>
arc> (= + $.ar-+2)
#<procedure:ar-+2>
arc> (time:repeat 1000000 nil)
time: 122 gc: 0 mem: 3256
nil
arc> (time:repeat 1000000 nil)
time: 121 gc: 0 mem: 1880
nil
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 10000000) 't (loop (ar-+2 n 1))))
time: 310 gc: 0 mem: 776
t
arc> (time:$:let loop ((n 0)) (if (> n 10000000) 't (loop (ar-+2 n 1))))
time: 323 gc: 0 mem: 936
t
What, now the Arc loop goes faster than it did with the Racket +. Probably because this function assumes two arguments, while Racket + assumes any number. And now the Racket loop is only 10x slower than with Racket +. (I expect Racket knows how to optimize its own 2-argument +.) By the way, in case you think the Arc loop goes faster than Racket, note that the Arc loop goes to 1 million and the Racket loop to 10 million; Racket is here going 3x as fast as Arc (and if Racket used Racket +, it'd be going 30x as fast).
Oh, um, I should test the case-lambda thing. I copy to clipboard my definition of + from the Optimizations page:
Virtually no difference from the raw ar-+2. Just for reference, so I can be sure ar-+2 only goes faster than Racket + in the Arc loop because ar-+2 effectively declares that it takes only two arguments:
Good, I'm not going crazy. Anyway, that final version of ar-+2 is my official recommendation.
Oh, incidentally, this "time" thing (though I think it was just "mem-use" back then) also helped me figure out that "<", ">", and "is" were allocating memory (provoking my work behind the Optimizations page). For example, I found that (no x) malloc'd; I eventually realized that this is because "is" mallocs, and (no x) is defined as (is x nil).
Also, here's some further relevant usage of "time":
arc> (time:no:= xs (n-of 1000000 0))
time: 2351 gc: 331 mem: 32513488
nil
arc> (time:no:zap nrev xs)
time: 152 gc: 0 mem: 632 ;hell yeah, nrev works well
nil
arc> (time:no:zap rev xs)
time: 254 gc: 0 mem: 32000584
nil
;now here's when it GC's
arc> (time:no:zap rev xs)
time: 371 gc: 117 mem: 31824248
nil
arc> time:len.xs ;this is my fixed "len"
time: 8 gc: 0 mem: 0
1000000
;now, for comparison, let's see the old definition of "len" from ac.scm
arc> (= len (eval:list '$ (read:pbpaste)))
#<procedure>
arc> time:len.xs
time: 461 gc: 261 mem: 68936656 ;OMG this is ridiculous
1000000
I'm fine with overloaded functions (assuming it makes sense to overload them). The problem isn't that + is overloaded to accept multiple types (that's fine). The problem is that it's trying to fulfill two different purposes at the same time (addition and concatenation), so there's inconsistencies with regard to numbers.
Thus, separating those two behaviors into two separate functions can make sense. In this case, it would be `join` being used for the current concatenate behavior, and `+` being used for numeric addition only. This would also allow us to sanely fix certain behaviors:
(+ 5 "foo") -> error
(join 5 "foo") -> "5foo"
One downside with that approach is that `join` is 3 characters longer than `+`. Oh, and it would require changing `join` so it accepts non-conses, but I would consider that a good change, to be honest. It would allow for stuff like this:
(join '(1 2 3) 4) -> (1 2 3 4)
By the way, I don't think it's a super big deal whether + handles non-numeric types or not. But at the same time, I can see some of the reasoning behind splitting addition/concatenation into two different functions.
P.S. With regard to the performance of a highly abstract Lisp written in itself, running on top of the Racket interpreter: given how slow Arc is in general, I doubt + is going to be the bottleneck.
P.P.S. I believe aw's post was mostly about preserving accuracy in those situations where you can't have any sort of rounding errors. Obviously the default + should behave as it currently does, coercing to the more abstract numeric type. However, in the situations where you need that precision, it might be nice to have a specialized + for that, like +-precise or whatever.
"The problem is that it's trying to fulfill two different purposes at the same time (addition and concatenation), so there's inconsistencies with regard to numbers."
If your numbers were Church encoded, then I guess there wouldn't be a difference between addition and concatenation. XD (This is given that concatenating functions is the same as composing them.)
Yeah, sure, and let's just use lambdas for everything:
(def cons (x y) (fn (f) (f x y)))
(def car (x) (x (fn (a b) a)))
(def cdr (x) (x (fn (a b) b)))
(car (cons 'a nil)) -> a
:P
On a semi-related note, I had an interest a while back for implementing a Lisp interpreter using only lambda-calculus. I'm still not sure if it's possible or not, but I wanted to give it a try.
