[plt-dev] some Racket proposals & implementation

On Sun, Apr 4, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Matthew Flatt <mflatt at cs.utah.edu> wrote:
> At Sat, 3 Apr 2010 20:26:05 -0600, Jay McCarthy wrote:
>> The main issue seems to be that sstruct uses "many libraries at
>> compile time". In particular that's scheme/match, dict, and
>> syntax/parse. If we can't use our high level language and awesome
>> macro tools in our main language, what's the point?
>
> To use it for the 99.9...% of modules that aren't implementing the core
> libraries.
>
> Another way to look at this particular example: If the `define-struct'
> of `racket/base' is implemented in terms of `racket/match',
> `racket/dict', and `syntax/parse', then those libraries cannot be
> implemented using the `racket/base' language.

That's totally correct.

We could have 'define-base-struct' in racket/base and 'define-struct' in racket.

As an alternative research question, we could look into how to
transparently overlay traditional bootstrapping atop the language
towers model.

>> In this particular case, my batch compiler with its straight-forward
>> dead-code elimination allows you to use "scheme" and get the smallest
>> bit that you actually need. It gets smaller startup time and memory
>> footprint. Currently it's not perfect, but it seems like it is the
>> right direction when you're concerned with memory footprint, rather
>> than holding back what we otherwise believe are good features.
>
> I'm a fan of the whole-program batch compiler, but it assumes that
> `eval' and `expand' won't be used. It doesn't apply to someone using
> `mzc --c-mods racket/base' for an embedding executable. It doesn't
> apply to a language `X' that uses `racket/lang' at compile time and
> where language `X' is used to compile another 500 modules (where
> startup time for `X' turns into phase-1 initialization time for each of
> the 500 modules).

Correct. But I reckon those are the kinds of programs that this kinds
of performance metrics really matter for.

>> As a corollary, I see this define-sstruct as a nascent lambda/kw. If
>> we really value it, then it should be the default and we should do
>> what it takes to make it work.
>
> Agreed, and maybe we find a better answer in the long run --- maybe
> something that lets us combine the benefits of bootstrapping and
> language towers.
>
> For Racket 5.0, though, making it work means implementing
> `define-sstruct' in a more primitive language.

Okay. Is it worth un-using all those libraries to get my extensions in
define-struct? It may be informative for Ryan to compare the before
and after code size to see how useful syntax/parse really is.

Jay

-- 
Jay McCarthy <jay at cs.byu.edu>
Assistant Professor / Brigham Young University
http://teammccarthy.org/jay

"The glory of God is Intelligence" - D&C 93