An additional library mylibrary.el for emacs (v 26.3) was added
to load-path and is autoloaded in my init.el file.
The library is also listed under my installed packages in emacs (M-x list-packages) and is provided through (provide 'mylibrary) in mylibrary.el.
The file can be executed in emacs with M-x
mylibrary but cannot be required in my slime-repl session.
CL-USER> (require 'mylibrary)
; Evaluation aborted on #<SB-INT:EXTENSION-FAILURE
"Don't know how to ~S ~A." {1007A5F073}>.
CL-USER> (require 'asdf)
NIL
any ideas why I can require asdf and not my library?
When running Slime to execute Lisp code from Emacs, there are two separate interpreters: the one in Emacs that interprets Emacs Lisp (Elisp), and the one in your Common Lisp (CL) implementation that is executed in a separate process:
Slime is written in Emacs Lisp and connects to a server called Swank, implemented in Common Lisp.
Emacs Lisp shares a lot of similarities with Common Lisp, but is a different language. It would be surprising if a library written in Elisp could be interpreted without modification in CL.
You can require asdf because it is written in CL and available as a built-in in most implementations.
Note that from the Lisp side of things, you can call (swank:eval-in-emacs emacs-expr) to ask Emacs to run some Emacs Lisp code for you (provided you turn the security flag to false in Emacs). I use this to visit some files from the Lisp process but this is not necessarily what you need here (depending on what your library does, it might be possible to find an equivalent one in CL).
Usually, Common Lisp code has the file ending .lisp.
Emacs Lisp code has the file extension .el.
Racket (originally Scheme) code has the file extension .rkt.
Scheme code has the file extension .scm.
Clojure code has the file extension .clj.
ClojureScript code has the file extension .cljs.
(There are some more Lisps but these are the main ones).
These are different languages / lisp dialects, though they are all from the Lisp language family.
They need different compilers and interpreters. Therefore, you can't cross-exchange codes from one lisp dialects to the other.
Although, if you know the dialects it might not be too difficult for you
to translate them into the other language.
And sometimes (Common Lisp and Scheme) they have even different implementations with slight implementation-specific differences.
Common Lisp:
SBCL
ABCL
CLISP
ECL
Franz Lisp
CMUCL
...
Scheme:
MIT/GNU Scheme
Chez Scheme
Chicken
GNU Guile
Gauche
...
implementations with varying implementation details.
Only with Clojure, ClojureScript and Rackt you can be sure that they have just one main/official implementation.
Related
I tried to generate C code starting from a scheme function and I do not manage to find any translator from scheme to C. I tried to convert this function to C.
(define f
(lambda(n)
(if (= n 0) 1
(* n (f (- n 1))))))
(display (f 10))
(newline)
I tried to use gambit (gsc) and it generates a C file that looks merely like a file to load in some interpreter, not a file containing a main function that can be executed.
Is there some application that generates C code that can be directly executed? The functions from standard scheme library like display should be linked with some object file.
EDIT:
My purpose is to understand the algorithms used by professional translators.
There are many such translators, dating back at least to the 1980s I think CHICKEN is a good current one.
If you want to use that:
get CHICKEN;
build & install it with the appropriate make incantation (this was painless for me on OSX, it should be very painless indeed on Linux therefore, although it may be harder on Windows);
stash your code in a file I'll call f.scm.
if you want to see the C code, compile with chicken f.scm which will produce a few hundred lines of incomprehensible C;
if you want just the executable, use csc to create it.
There is an extensive manual which you will need to read if you want to do anything nontrivial, such as linking in C libraries or talking to Scheme code from C.
Without knowing what you are after, this smells as if it may be an XY problem. In particular:
if you want a Scheme system which will allow you talk to code written in C, then you probably want a system with an FFI, not one that compiles to C;
if you want a Scheme system which will create native executables, then you probably want, well, a Scheme system which will create native executables, not one which compiles to C.
There are many examples of each of these. Some of these systems may also compile to, or via, C, but one does not depend on the other.
Finally, if you want to understand how Scheme compilers which target C work (or how Scheme compilers which target any language, including assembler), then the traditional approach probably still works best: find a well-written one for which source is available, and read & tinker with its source code.
Basically no scheme to C translators will do what you want. They create hideous code not meant to be read and they rely on the underlying C compiler to do much of the optimization. Chicken and Gambit make use of header files while I have Stalin, which does not but it is based on R4RS instead of R5RS and later.
You are probably better off reading Abdulaziz Ghuloum's paper An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction (PDF) or perhaps Matt Mights articles on parsing, continuations and compilations. Longer down he actually has a Scheme to C and Scheme to Java with different approaches to closure conventions. In the end nothing beats doing it yourself so have a go!
Regarding the three criteria of agent-oriented programming paradigm:
support a logical system for defining the mental state of agents
interpreted programming language for programming agents
agentification process, for compiling agent programs into low-level executable systems (tied into second point)
Are there interpreted programming languages that are not compiled? To my understanding, the whole point of interpreting languages is to implement a new language with certain features, syntax, etc... but the underlying implementation eventually needs to compile down into something low-level so that it can actually be executed.
Is point 3 of the agent-oriented programming paradigm simply saying that it isn't sufficient to just theoretically define a language without implementing the language in something that can compile down into low-level code that can actually be run?
Yes, Jason is fully interpreted. It is a BDI agent platform. It also supports dynamic (on-the-fly) programming. You can add and organize plans in runtime and you can also save the agent mental state and load a new content with the whole system running.
Actually, there is a continuum between compiled and interpreted languages. And being compiled or interpreted is a property of the language implementation (a programming language is a specification, that is a document like R5RS; it is not a software)
I strongly recommend reading Quiennec's Lisp In Small Pieces book, which explains that in great detail (see also this). I also recommend reading Scott's Programming Language Pragmatics book.
BTW, Minsky's Society of Mind book and Pitrat's Artificial Beings: The Conscience of a Conscious Machine book should also interest you. And J.Pitrat's blog is also relevant.
Many "compiled" languages have "interpreted" parts. For example, in C, most printf implementations are "interpreting" the control format string (this is done in the printf function of the C standard library), even if the specification permits some form of "compilation". (and sometimes, GCC or Clang might be clever enough...)
Are there interpreted programming languages that are not compiled?
Read also about partial evaluation and Futamara projections
Study Common Lisp and look inside its SBCL implementation, which compiles into machine code every REPL interaction. Look also into LuaJit.
Be also aware of JIT-compiling libraries such as libgccjit, GNU lightning, asmjit, or LLVM.
I am implementing a lisp interpreter in C, i have implemented along with few primitives like cons , car, cdr , eq, basic arithmetic stuff.
Just before i was starting to implement define and lambda it occurred to me that i need to implement an environment. I am unsure if i could implement it in lisp itself.
My intent is to implement minimal amount of lisp so that i could write extension to the language in itself. I am not sure how much is minimal, Would implementing FFI Qualify as minimal ?
The answer to your question depends on the meaning that you give to the word “minimal”.
Given your question, and assuming that you don't want to make an implementation competing with the nowdays fine implementations of Common Lisp and Schema, my hypothesis is that with “minimal” you intend: Turing complete, that is capable of expressing any computation expressible in a general purpose programming language.
With this assumption, you need to implement three other things:
conditional forms (cond)
lambda expressions (lambda)
a way of defining recursive lambda expression (labels or defun)
Your interpreter then should be able to evaluate forms. This should be sufficient to have a language equivalent to the initial LISP, that allow to express in the language any computable function.
First off, you are talking about first writing a LISP interpreter. You have a lot of choices to take when it comes to scoping, LISP1 vs LISP2 since these questions alter the implementation core. An interpreter is a general purpose program that reads and evaluates code. It can support abstractions but it won't extend itself by making more native stuff.
If you are interested in such stuff you can perhaps make a compiler instead. Eg. there are many Sceme like subsets that compiles to C or Java code, but you can make your own VM. Thus it can indeed compile itself to be run on it's own target machine (self hosting) if all the forms and procedures you use has been implemented using the primitives supported by the compiler.
Making a dumb compiler is not much difference from making an interpreter. That is very clear if yo've watched the SICP videos (10A is about compilation, 7A-B is about interpreters)
The environment can be a chain of pairs just as in a LISP interpreter. It would be difficult to implement the environment of itself in LISP without making it a very difficult Lisp language to use (unless it's compiled that is)
You may use the data structures of lisp and the primitives from the C code though.
Making a FFI is a fast way to give your language lots of features. It solves the chicken and egg problem by using other peoples work from within your language. In fuses the top (primitives and syntax) and the bottom layer (a runtime) of your system. It's the ultimate primitive and you can think of it as system call or message bus to the runtime.
I strongly suggest to read Queinnec's book: Lisp In Small Pieces. It is a book dedicated entirely to answer your question, and it explains in detail the many trade-offs and the internals of Lisp implementations and definitions, by giving many explained examples of Lisp interpreters and compilers.
You might also consider using libffi. You could be interested in the internals of M.Serrano's Bigloo & Hop implementations. You might even look inside my MELT lisp-like language to customize the GCC
compiler.
You also need to learn more about garbage collection (you might read the GC handbook). You could use Boehm's conservative Garbage Collector (or something else, e.g. my Qish or MPS) or write your own GC.
You may want to learn more about Chicken, Scheme 48, Guile and read their papers and look inside their code.
See also J.Pitrat's blog: it is not about Lisp (but about bootstrapping strong AI) and has several fascinating entries related to bootstrapping.
I've heard of the idea of bootstrapping a language, that is, writing a compiler/interpreter for the language in itself. I was wondering how this could be accomplished and looked around a bit, and saw someone say that it could only be done by either
writing an initial compiler in a different language.
hand-coding an initial compiler in Assembly, which seems like a special case of the first
To me, neither of these seem to actually be bootstrapping a language in the sense that they both require outside support. Is there a way to actually write a compiler in its own language?
Is there a way to actually write a compiler in its own language?
You have to have some existing language to write your new compiler in. If you were writing a new, say, C++ compiler, you would just write it in C++ and compile it with an existing compiler first. On the other hand, if you were creating a compiler for a new language, let's call it Yazzleof, you would need to write the new compiler in another language first. Generally, this would be another programming language, but it doesn't have to be. It can be assembly, or if necessary, machine code.
If you were going to bootstrap a compiler for Yazzleof, you generally wouldn't write a compiler for the full language initially. Instead you would write a compiler for Yazzle-lite, the smallest possible subset of the Yazzleof (well, a pretty small subset at least). Then in Yazzle-lite, you would write a compiler for the full language. (Obviously this can occur iteratively instead of in one jump.) Because Yazzle-lite is a proper subset of Yazzleof, you now have a compiler which can compile itself.
There is a really good writeup about bootstrapping a compiler from the lowest possible level (which on a modern machine is basically a hex editor), titled Bootstrapping a simple compiler from nothing. It can be found at https://web.archive.org/web/20061108010907/http://www.rano.org/bcompiler.html.
The explanation you've read is correct. There's a discussion of this in Compilers: Principles, Techniques, and Tools (the Dragon Book):
Write a compiler C1 for language X in language Y
Use the compiler C1 to write compiler C2 for language X in language X
Now C2 is a fully self hosting environment.
The way I've heard of is to write an extremely limited compiler in another language, then use that to compile a more complicated version, written in the new language. This second version can then be used to compile itself, and the next version. Each time it is compiled the last version is used.
This is the definition of bootstrapping:
the process of a simple system activating a more complicated system that serves the same purpose.
EDIT: The Wikipedia article on compiler bootstrapping covers the concept better than me.
A super interesting discussion of this is in Unix co-creator Ken Thompson's Turing Award lecture.
He starts off with:
What I am about to describe is one of many "chicken and egg" problems that arise when compilers are written in their own language. In this ease, I will use a specific example from the C compiler.
and proceeds to show how he wrote a version of the Unix C compiler that would always allow him to log in without a password, because the C compiler would recognize the login program and add in special code.
The second pattern is aimed at the C compiler. The replacement code is a Stage I self-reproducing program that inserts both Trojan horses into the compiler. This requires a learning phase as in the Stage II example. First we compile the modified source with the normal C compiler to produce a bugged binary. We install this binary as the official C. We can now remove the bugs from the source of the compiler and the new binary will reinsert the bugs whenever it is compiled. Of course, the login command will remain bugged with no trace in source anywhere.
Check out podcast Software Engineering Radio episode 61 (2007-07-06) which discusses GCC compiler internals, as well as the GCC bootstrapping process.
Donald E. Knuth actually built WEB by writing the compiler in it, and then hand-compiled it to assembly or machine code.
As I understand it, the first Lisp interpreter was bootstrapped by hand-compiling the constructor functions and the token reader. The rest of the interpreter was then read in from source.
You can check for yourself by reading the original McCarthy paper, Recursive Functions of Symbolic Expressions and Their Computation by Machine, Part I.
Every example of bootstrapping a language I can think of (C, PyPy) was done after there was a working compiler. You have to start somewhere, and reimplementing a language in itself requires writing a compiler in another language first.
How else would it work? I don't think it's even conceptually possible to do otherwise.
Another alternative is to create a bytecode machine for your language (or use an existing one if it's features aren't very unusual) and write a compiler to bytecode, either in the bytecode, or in your desired language using another intermediate - such as a parser toolkit which outputs the AST as XML, then compile the XML to bytecode using XSLT (or another pattern matching language and tree-based representation). It doesn't remove the dependency on another language, but could mean that more of the bootstrapping work ends up in the final system.
It's the computer science version of the chicken-and-egg paradox. I can't think of a way not to write the initial compiler in assembler or some other language. If it could have been done, I should Lisp could have done it.
Actually, I think Lisp almost qualifies. Check out its Wikipedia entry. According to the article, the Lisp eval function could be implemented on an IBM 704 in machine code, with a complete compiler (written in Lisp itself) coming into being in 1962 at MIT.
Some bootstrapped compilers or systems keep both the source form and the object form in their repository:
ocaml is a language which has both a bytecode interpreter (i.e. a compiler to Ocaml bytecode) and a native compiler (to x86-64 or ARM, etc... assembler). Its svn repository contains both the source code (files */*.{ml,mli}) and the bytecode (file boot/ocamlc) form of the compiler. So when you build it is first using its bytecode (of a previous version of the compiler) to compile itself. Later the freshly compiled bytecode is able to compile the native compiler. So Ocaml svn repository contains both *.ml[i] source files and the boot/ocamlc bytecode file.
The rust compiler downloads (using wget, so you need a working Internet connection) a previous version of its binary to compile itself.
MELT is a Lisp-like language to customize and extend GCC. It is translated to C++ code by a bootstrapped translator. The generated C++ code of the translator is distributed, so the svn repository contains both *.melt source files and melt/generated/*.cc "object" files of the translator.
J.Pitrat's CAIA artificial intelligence system is entirely self-generating. It is available as a collection of thousands of [A-Z]*.c generated files (also with a generated dx.h header file) with a collection of thousands of _[0-9]* data files.
Several Scheme compilers are also bootstrapped. Scheme48, Chicken Scheme, ...
Is it legal to call a C compiler written in C or a PHP interpreter written in PHP metacircular? Is this definition valid only for languages of a specific type, like Lisp? In short, what are the conditions that an interpreter should satisfy for being called Metacircular?
A metacircular interpreter is an interpreter written in a (possibly more basic) implementation of the same language. This is usually done to experiment with adding new features to a language, or creating a different dialect.
The reason this process is associated with Lisp is because of the highly lucid paper "The Art of the Interpreter", which shows several metacircular interpreters based on Scheme. (The paper is the kernel for the book SICP, and its fourth chapter works through others that create e.g. a lazily-evaluated Scheme.)
This is also vastly easier to do in a "homoiconic" language (a language whose code can be manipulated as data at runtime), such as Lisp, Prolog, and Forth.
As to your direct question - the C compiler wouldn't be an interpreter at all. A compiler written in its own language is 'self-hosting', which is a similar property, but more related to bootstrapping. A PHP interpreter in PHP probably wouldn't count, since you would likely be re-implementing a nontrivial amount of the language in the process. The major benefit of a conventional metacircular interpreter is that doing so isn't necessary - you can plug in the existing parser, garbage collection (if any), etc., and just write a top-level evaluator with different semantics. In Scheme or Prolog, it's often less than a page of code.
Here is a definition from the wikipedia page for metacircular:
A meta-circular evaluator is a special
case of a self-interpreter in which
the existing facilities of the parent
interpreter are directly applied to
the source code being interpreted,
without any need for additional
implementation.
So the answer is no in both cases:
A C compiler is not an interpreter (evaluator). It translates a program from one form to another without executing it.
A (hypothetical) PHP interpreter written in PHP would be a self interpreter, but not necessarily metacircular.
To complement the above answers: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?MetaCircularEvaluator
Lisp written in Lisp implements "eval" by calling "eval". But there is
no "eval" in many other languages (and if there is, it has different
semantics), so instead a completely new language system would have to
be written, one which gives a detailed algorithm for "eval" -- which
was not necessary in the metacircular case. And that is the magic of
MetaCircularEvaluators: they reflect an underlying magic of the
languages in which they are possible.
As i understand it, a metacircular interpreter is an interpreter that can interpret itself.
A compiler only translates code, and doesn't execute it.
Any Turing-complete language is mathematically able to emulate any logical computation, so here's an example using Python. Instead of using CPython to translate this code to CPU instructions and execute it, you could also use PyPy. The latter is bootstrapped, so fulfills some arbitrary criterion that some people use to define a metacircular interpreter.
"""
Metacircular Python interpreter with macro feature.
By Cees Timmerman, 14aug13.
"""
import re
def meta_python_exec(code):
# Optional meta feature.
re_macros = re.compile("^#define (\S+) ([^\r\n]+)", re.MULTILINE)
macros = re_macros.findall(code)
code = re_macros.sub("", code)
for m in macros:
code = code.replace(m[0], m[1])
# Run the code.
exec(code)
if __name__ == "__main__":
#code = open("metacircular_overflow.py", "r").read() # Causes a stack overflow in Python 3.2.3, but simply raises "RuntimeError: maximum recursion depth exceeded while calling a Python object" in Python 2.7.3.
code = "#define 1 2\r\nprint(1 + 1)"
meta_python_exec(code)
A C compiler written in C is not a MetaCircularEvaluator, because the
compiler must specify extremely detailed and precise semantics for
each and every construct. The fact that the compiler is written in the
target language does not help at all; the same algorithms could be
translated into Pascal or Java or Ada or Cobol, and it would still be
a perfectly good C compiler.
By contrast, a MetaCircularInterpreter
for Lisp can't be translated into a non-Lisp language. That's right,
cannot be -- at least, not in any simple one-to one fashion. Lisp
written in Lisp implements "eval" by calling "eval". But there is no
"eval" in many other languages (and if there is, it has different
semantics), so instead a completely new language system would have to
be written, one which gives a detailed algorithm for "eval" -- which
was not necessary in the metacircular case.
And that is the magic of
MetaCircularEvaluators: they reflect an underlying magic of the
languages in which they are possible.