cl-ppcre VS chapel

I've never used cl-ppcre myself, but its docs[1] claim that it provides compile-time regexes:

> CL-PPCRE uses compiler macros to pre-compile scanners at load time if possible. This happens if the compiler can determine that the regular expression (no matter if it's a string or an S-expression) is constant at compile time and is intended to save the time for creating scanners at execution time (probably creating the same scanner over and over in a loop).

[1]: https://edicl.github.io/cl-ppcre/

A few weeks back Xach recommended cl-ppcre which i found educational.

For simple string processing, there are some functions in the language, that you can find listed here (for string-specific functions) and here (for more generic sequence-handling functions). For anything involving regular expressions, cl-ppcre is the way, in particular the split and register-groups-bind functions.

I must have a serious bug in my writing about this, because this was never about regex engines -- it's about literals and domain-specific sublanguages in general. Composing DSL programs by string concatenation is such a famous source of security bugs you see it in top-10 lists. I linked to the very similar example of a PEG parsing DSL.

But any regex engine that can work with a parse tree shows the same principle, e.g. https://edicl.github.io/cl-ppcre/#create-scanner2

Take a look at - https://github.com/edicl/cl-ppcre

And here's what I believe represents the reality of the situation... Stas was indeed tired of ASDF's changes. Now the nature of what changes to make is a matter of judgement of course, but in this case (I'm thinking of SBCL's bug report request to update ASDF: https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1826074), it would be a different matter altogether if the discussion was centered on how best to make the new ASDF work with SBCL, but the thread reads to me like a man who had to put up with too much breakage for the upteenth time. Now, if (for the sake of argument :D) the change was of the necessary kind -- think hardware changes or security issues -- I can still see myself feeling wronged, it's human to do so. Because I don't trust ASDF anymore or I feel as if they (or other people at each step of the process) have not shared enough of the burden. But from the discussions I have read (https://github.com/edicl/cl-ppcre/pull/30) what the ASDF maintainers want to change does not seem unreasonable and they are willing to share the burden. But let us say it's truly a 50/50 deadlock. Well then Linus is right, show us the code, who dares wins. And Stas certainly has enough on his plate. But that's why we must cooperate. You don't have to be a diplomat to know the difference when two people want to work together and when one party wants out. And this setting makes more sense when you read (https://bugs.launchpad.net/sbcl/+bug/1823442) where Stas honestly states he wants nothing more to do with ASDF. I don't think it's unreasonable to surmise there's a bit more going on here than plainly technical issues.

Could you just direct me to some existing discussions, in order to save time? I already read this one.

I plan to use the regular expressions with a cl-ppcre wrapper, also emulating various clojure regular expression operations. Similar to re21, which doesn't quite support the operations in the way I'd like (or match the clojure operations), and whose regular expression literal syntax is "#//".

Thanks, @subharmonicon!

While Chapel can run on many different systems, the main goal is making HPC programming much easier. Therefore, we are currently focusing on hardware that you can find in HPC systems (NVIDIA, AMD and Intel). Metal doesn't fall into that category, unfortunately. So far, the name came up infrequently in our discussions IIRC (especially targetting SPIRV), but we haven't heard from any [potential] user who may be interested in it. I would encourage you or anybody else interested in it to create an issue asking for the feature: https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/issues/new. Seeing public interest in that direction can change our prioritization.

One thing that I wanted to add that's not in the blogpost is the "cpu-as-device" mode. With that mode, you can use any machine, even one without a GPU, to write applications using Chapel's GPU features. That mode is for those who want to do initial development/debugging on their personal laptops before putting their application on an HPC system. In other words, while you can't use Metal directly, you can still write GPU-enabled applications in your Mac using Chapel, if the end goal is to run it on an HPC system. More details on cpu-as-device: https://chapel-lang.org/docs/main/technotes/gpu.html#cpu-as-...

Agreed. Here is a serious contender[0] minus all the hype and the $100M in VC money. You would expect a minimum of interest given how Mojo is received by the community, but not really in practice.

[0]: https://chapel-lang.org/

Cray is pushing their own language as well, Chapel.

https://chapel-lang.org/

As for Julia on Cray,

"Julia — The Newest Petaflop Family Language We Have Started to Love"

https://www.avenga.com/magazine/julia-programming-language

> Julia is one of the few languages that are in the so-called PetaFlop family; the other languages are C, C++ and Fortrant. It achieved 1.54 petaflops with 1.3 million threads on the Cray XC40 supercomputer.

https://chapel-lang.org if possible, Nix was also recently mentioned in Chapel Workshop https://chapel-lang.org/CHIUW2023.html https://github.com/twesterhout/nix-chapel

See Val for a possible step into that direction.

https://www.val-lang.dev/

Or how the Chapel language for HPC is going at it,

https://chapel-lang.org/

I suggest posting to a PLT focused resource, such as http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/

That said, a bit confused about the languages you reference in this context (Python, C#, JS) - didn't see any mention here or at your github repo of languages (some relatively ancient) in this space designed.

Sandia: Programming Languages for HPC [high performance computing] - is there life after MPI?

https://www.sandia.gov/app/uploads/sites/179/2022/04/SOS10-T...

Chapel:

https://chapel-lang.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Array_programming_lan...

We needed the implicit conversion to `uint` in order for the overload resolution rules to make reasonable choices when faced with binary overloads for all of the numeric types. The document I linked talks through the examples. The case we were facing is something that we shared with `C#` -- in `C#` terms, if I make overloads for `f` for all numeric types (see https://github.com/chapel-lang/chapel/blob/main/test/types/coerce/allNumericsBinary.cs if you want to know exactly what I am talking about), then `f( myInt, myUlong )` runs `f(float, float)` which makes no sense. Especially if you care about numerical accuracy or program performance.

Code | Blog Walkthrough