one-more-re-nightmare
Petalisp
Our great sponsors
one-more-re-nightmare | Petalisp | |
---|---|---|
11 | 17 | |
133 | 424 | |
0.8% | - | |
4.2 | 8.5 | |
9 months ago | about 2 months ago | |
Common Lisp | Common Lisp | |
BSD 2-clause "Simplified" License | GNU Affero General Public License v3.0 |
Stars - the number of stars that a project has on GitHub. Growth - month over month growth in stars.
Activity is a relative number indicating how actively a project is being developed. Recent commits have higher weight than older ones.
For example, an activity of 9.0 indicates that a project is amongst the top 10% of the most actively developed projects that we are tracking.
one-more-re-nightmare
-
Regular Expressions make me feel like a powerful wizard- that's not a good thing
Depends on your regex engine, and your non-regex solution. My engine (shameless self-plug https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare) rivals hand-written automata, having to load each character more-or-less* only once, and throws in vectorisation for simple search loops too. I would not want to write or maintain the generated code.
-
Don't be lazy this month!
one-more-re-nightmare used to let you write Σ, but I then tried to search Greek stuff with it and it went wrong. So now there's...$ for all characters (since that's not used for end-of-line assertions).
-
When a young programmer who has been using C for several years is convinced that C is the best possible programming language and that people who don't prefer it just haven't use it enough, what is the best argument for Lisp vs C, given that they're already convinced in favor of C?
One trick is that Common Lisp can generate and compile code at runtime, whereas static languages typically do not have a compiler available at runtime. This lets you make your own lazy person's JIT/staged compiler, which is useful if some part of the problem is not known at compile-time. Such an approach has been used at least for array munging, type munging and regular expression munging.
-
Tutorial Series to learn Common Lisp quickly
> One of my favorite examples is the regex library cl-ppcre. Thanks to the nature of Lisp, the recognizer for each regex you create can be compiled to native code on compiler implementations of CL.
That is not true - cl-ppcre generates a chain of closures. Experimental performance is in the same ballpark as typical "bytecode" interpreting regex implementations.
(Disclosure: I wrote another regex library at <https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare>, which does do native code compilation.)
-
The self-hosted Zig compiler can now successfully compile itself
Someone else didn't tell me that before, so it can't be true. But I don't publish papers on toys, nor do I think toy projects are awfully fast. Though the x86-64 backend I wrote was in someone else's repository and thus was several PRs :(
-
Most interesting languages to learn (from)?
Regular expressions
-
Is regex really fast in CL?
Also try this https://github.com/telekons/one-more-re-nightmare
-
Why You Should Learn Lisp In 2022?
A Common Lisp system has the compiler around at runtime, so if you can figure out how to profitably stage/specialise a computation, then you can roll your own cheap JIT of sorts. This can be useful for array munging and regular expressions at the least. You can do this in C, of course but you would need to use another compiler as a library (e.g. LLVM, TCC, libgccjit) or write your own (e.g. PCRE2's sljit).
-
LISP with GC in 436 bytes
Agree to disagree - I don't have the energy to remember operator precedence. One file from the regular expression compiler has most of the rewrite rules I read from the papers, except in S-expression syntax. There were a few bugs due to misreading precedence. Also c.f. Gerald Sussman talking about physics notation being a pain in the butt.
-
The one-more-re-nightmare regular expression compiler
It's all part of the library. Everything about regular expression types is in this file.
Petalisp
- Petalisp: Elegant High Performance Computing
- Is there a tutorial for automatic differentiation with petalisp?
-
Is there a language with lisp syntax but C semantics?
While not "as fast as C" (C is not the absolute pinnacle of performance), Common Lisp is incredibly fast compared to the majority of programming languages around today. There is even a huge amount of ongoing work being done to make it faster still. We are seeing many interesting projects that make better use of the hardware in your computer (e.g. https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp).
-
Common Lisp Implementations in 2023
i think lisp-stat library is actually being developed. however one numerical cl library that doesnt get enough mention and is being constantly developed is petalisp for HPC
https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp
-
numericals - Performance of NumPy with the goodness of Common Lisp
However, if you have a lisp library that puts those semantics to use, then you could get it to employ magicl/ext-blas and cl-bmas to speed it up. (petalisp looks relevant, but I lack the background to compare it with APL.)
-
New Lisp-Stat Release
> his means cl pagckages can be "done".
this is true if there is nothing functional that can be added to a package. however its very much not true for ml frameworks right now. new things are being added all the time in the field. however even in the package i linked you have the necessary ingredients for any deep learning model: cuda and back propagation. the other person mentioned convolution which i think is pretty trivial to implement but still, if you expect everything for you to be ready made then you should probably stick to tf and pytorch. if you want to explore the cutting edge and push the boundaries then i think common lisp is a good tool. as an aside it might also be interesting to note that a common lisp package (Petalisp) is being used for high performance computing by a german university
https://github.com/marcoheisig/Petalisp
- The Julia language has a number of correctness flaws
-
When a young programmer who has been using C for several years is convinced that C is the best possible programming language and that people who don't prefer it just haven't use it enough, what is the best argument for Lisp vs C, given that they're already convinced in favor of C?
One trick is that Common Lisp can generate and compile code at runtime, whereas static languages typically do not have a compiler available at runtime. This lets you make your own lazy person's JIT/staged compiler, which is useful if some part of the problem is not known at compile-time. Such an approach has been used at least for array munging, type munging and regular expression munging.
What are some alternatives?
Revise.jl - Automatically update function definitions in a running Julia session
awesome-cl - A curated list of awesome Common Lisp frameworks, libraries and other shiny stuff.
SICL - A fresh implementation of Common Lisp
JWM - Cross-platform window management and OS integration library for Java
zig - General-purpose programming language and toolchain for maintaining robust, optimal, and reusable software.
cl-cuda - Cl-cuda is a library to use NVIDIA CUDA in Common Lisp programs.
cl-ppcre - Common Lisp regular expression library
magicl - Matrix Algebra proGrams In Common Lisp.
oakc - A portable programming language with a compact intermediate representation
lish - Lisp Shell
julia - The Julia Programming Language
StatsBase.jl - Basic statistics for Julia