aeson VS HVM

Don't get me wrong, we figured it all out, and currently we use Aeson fork as we needed this: https://github.com/haskell/aeson/pull/926, as the default behaviour didn't work with Swift, and I wasn't sure if it's worth spending any time completing it...

See PR 871 and PR 877 for when and how exactly these things changed.

Simdjson-based Hermes is able to decode JSON significantly faster while still using an intermediate representation: https://github.com/haskell/aeson/pull/923

Ah, I see you are working on this already, thank you: https://github.com/haskell/aeson/pull/883

Similar scan is already in aeson https://github.com/haskell/aeson/blob/master/src/Data/Aeson/Parser/Internal.hs#L322-L335 where the unsafeDecodeASCII is used I mentioned in my previous comment.

Well, the aeson’s ffi code is written by me: https://github.com/haskell/aeson/commit/2f24e555d86a36fdda6d4cad79976004b382ab3b

Reminds me of HVM[0]

[0]https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM

Really interesting to see how new lang concepts and refinements keep popping up this last decade, between Vale, Gleam, Hylo, Austral...

Linear types really opened up lots of ways to improve memory management and compilation improvements.

I have a tangential question that is related to this cool new feature.

Warning: the question I ask comes from a part of my brain that is currently melted due to heavy thinking.

Context: I write a fair amount of Clojure, and in Lisps the code itself is a tree. Just like this F# parallel graph type-checker. In Lisps, one would use Macros to perform compile-time computation to accomplish something like this, I think.

More context: Idris2 allows for first class type-driven development, where the types are passed around and used to formally specify program behavior, even down to the value of a particular definition.

Given that this F# feature enables parallel analysis, wouldn't it make sense to do all of our development in a Lisp-like Trie structure where the types are simply part of the program itself, like in Idris2?

Also related, is this similar to how HVM works with their "Interaction nets"?

https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM

https://www.idris-lang.org/

https://clojure.org/

I'm afraid I don't even understand what the difference between code, data, and types are anymore... it used to make sense, but these new languages have dissolved those boundaries in my mind, and I am not sure how to build it back up again.

Impressive presentation but I find two things missing in particular:

* GRIN [1] - arguably a breakthrough in FP compilation; there are several implementation based on this

* HVM [2] - parallel optimal reduction. The results are very impressive.

[1] https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/3-540-63237-9_19

[2] https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM

Purity has nothing to do with memoization. Haskell's semantics never "rewrite under a lambda" (unlike, e.g. HVM). Calling (\_ -> e) () twice will (modulo optimizations) always perform the computation in e twice.

The most recent exploration of this, that I'm aware of is HVM (another intermediate language / runtime), although this one is not actually based on the lambda calculus, but on the interaction calculus.

Then, actually unrelated but worth mentioning: HVM. Finally, something new on the functional front that isn't dependent types!

If you are into functional PL, how about https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM? You could experiment if you could schedule that on a GPU?

In the interest of seeking ways of optimizing my code, I stumbled upon http://www.rntz.net/datafun/ as a means to do incremental computations of fixpoints while avoiding redundant work. And also the idea of automatic parallelism achieved by using Interaction Nets as a model of computation https://github.com/HigherOrderCO/HVM.