Som VS Oberon

> Smalltalkish

Have a look at the SOM dialect which is successfully used in education: http://som-st.github.io/

Here is an implementation in C++ which runs on LuaJIT: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som/

> unfortunately out of print book Smalltalk 80: the language and its implementation is commonly recommended

I assume you know this link: http://stephane.ducasse.free.fr/FreeBooks/BlueBook/Bluebook....

Here is an implementation in C++ and Lua: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk

- https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk/ Parser, code model, interpreter and navigable browser for the original Xerox Smalltalk-80 v2 sources and virtual image file

- https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som/ Parser, code model, navigable browser and VM for the SOM Smalltalk dialect

- https://github.com/rochus-keller/Simula A Simula 67 parser written in C++ and Qt

> do you regret those endeavours?

No, not in any way; the projects were very entertaining and gave me interesting insights.

If your DSL is statically typed then I recommend that you have a look at the Mono CLR; it's compatible with the ECMA-335 standard and the IR (CIL) is well documented, even with secondary literature.

If your DSL is dynamically typed I recommend LuaJIT; the bytecode is lean and documented (not as good as CIL though). LuaJIT also works well with statically typed languages, but Mono is faster in the latter case. Even if it was originally built for Lua any compiler can generate LuaJIT bytecode.

Both approaches are lean (Mono about 8 MB, LuaJIT about 1 MB), general purpose, available on many platforms and work well (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/ and https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som/).

At the latest when you run a benchmark suite like Are-we-fast-yet; here are some measurment results: http://software.rochus-keller.info/are-we-fast-yet_crystal_lua_node_som_pharo_i386_results_2020-12-29.pdf. See also https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som/ and https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk.

LuaJIT is well suited as a backend/runtime environment for custom languages; I did it several times (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Smalltalk, https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som/, https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/). I also implemented a bit of infrastructure to ease the reuse: https://github.com/rochus-keller/LjTools. LuaJIT has some limitations though; if you require closures you have to know that the corresponding LuaJIT FNEW bytecode is not yet supported by the JIT, i.e. switches to the interpreter; as a work-around I implemented my own closures; LuaJIT also doesn't support multi-threading, but co-routines; and there is no debugger, and the infrastructure to implement one has limitations (i.e. performance is low when running to breakpoints). For most of my projects this was no issue. Recently I switched to CIL/Mono for my Oberon+ implementation which was a good move. But still I consider LuaJIT a good choice if you can cope with the mentioned limitations. The major advantage of LuaJIT is the small footprint and impressive performance for dynamic languages.

One option is to leverage someone else's JIT: you could, for example, rewrite the interpreter to transpile to Lua source, which is then run in LuaJIT. There's a Smalltalk dialect which does this successfully; the Lua version runs in 1/12th the time of the C interpreted version. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som You can use LuaJIT's FFI to call back into the Stunt server, or else just rewrite it completely in Lua --- large parts of the Stunt server will just go away in a native Lua implementation (e.g. the object database is just a table). Javascript would be another candidate for this.

This is a completely different kind of measurement; unfortunately this is not clear enough from my Readme. I wanted to find out, how well my naive Bluebook interpreter performs on LuaJIT (using my virtual meta tracing approach) compared to Cog, which is a dedicatd Smalltalk VM optimized with whatever genious approaches over two decades (or even longer considering the long experience record by Elliot). This experiment continues in https://github.com/rochus-keller/Som, because I didn't want to modify the original Smalltalk image. I found that my naive LuaJIT based approach is about factor seven behind the highly optimized Cog/Spur, and further improvements would require similar optimization tricks as in the latter.

> Sure there's a small overhead to smart pointers

Not so small, and it has the potential to significantly speed down an application when not used wisely. Here are e.g. some measurements where the programmer used C++11 and did everything with smart pointers: https://github.com/smarr/are-we-fast-yet/issues/80#issuecomm.... There was a speed down between factor 2 and 10 compared with the C++98 implementation. Also remember that smart pointers create memory leaks when used with circular references, and there is an additional memory allocation involved with each smart pointer.

> Garbage collection has an overhead too of course

The Boehm GC is surprisingly efficient. See e.g. these measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase.... The same benchmark suite as above is compared with different versions of Mono (using the generational GC) and the C code (using Boehm GC) generated with my Oberon compiler. The latter only is 20% slower than the native C++98 version, and still twice as fast as Mono 5.

Great, thanks!

There are books online for free, e.g.

https://people.inf.ethz.ch/wirth/ProgInOberonWR.pdf

and https://ssw.jku.at/Research/Books/Oberon2.pdf

Oberon+ is a superset of Oberon 90 and Oberon-2. Here is more information: https://oberon-lang.github.io/, and here is the current language specification: https://github.com/oberon-lang/specification/blob/master/The.... I already had valuable feedback here on HN concerning the channel extensions. Further research brought me to the conclusion, that Oberon+ should support both, channels and also monitors, because even in Go, the sync package primitives are used twice as much as channels. Mutexes and condition variables can be emulated with channels (I tried my luck here: https://www.quora.com/How-can-we-emulate-mutexes-and-conditi...), but for efficiency reasons I think monitors should be directly supported in the language as well, even if it might collide with the goal of simplicity.

Feel free to comment here or e.g. in https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/discussions/45.

> Does anyone know why Wirth never modernized his style?

Readability. It's easier to read the source code with uppercase keywords. (I think Wirth once said that code is written once but read many times). See this source code - https://raw.githubusercontent.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem... - to get an idea of this (the uppercase keywords allow you to easily scan the blocks of code). Ofcourse, one can claim that the same can be achieved better today with colour-coded keywords.

If I remember right, the Oberon+ IDE - https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon - gives you an option to disable this and use lowercase keywords.

> gain a deep understanding of it .. generate smaller subsets of the system

You can use the OberonViewer for this purpose with the original source code, or the Oberon IDE with a version of the Project Oberon System which runs with SDL on all platforms, see https://github.com/rochus-keller/oberon/#binary-versions and https://github.com/rochus-keller/OberonSystem/tree/FFI

> Regardless, which one is more likely to be ported to a different architecture in the future?

Not sure I understand the question. I'm talking about CPU architectures. The current implementation is in x86 assembler. So if you want to run it on AMD64 or ARM, then you have to replace all assembler files, in the present case probable the full source code.

> what are the comparative performance benchmarks of the low-level language versus the high-level language?

I don't have any measurements. But consider that many operating systems are implemented in C (e.g. Linux) with only isolated parts in assembler, so it is easier to port to other architectures. Linux apparently is fast enough and available for nearly every CPU. Oberon in contrast to C is garbage collected, which also affects performance. I have measurements comparing the same benchmark suite implemented in C++ and in Oberon, where the former is about 22% faster (see https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcase...).

I actually had a similar problem some years ago and finally moved away from LLVM because of complexity, continuous research effort and performance. My current Oberon+ implementation works like this: the CIL code generator together with Mono is used during development, integrated with the IDE, using the debugging features integrated in Mono; to deploy the application and to gain another factor 2 of performance C99 instead of CIL can be generated and compiled with any compatible toolchain. Here are some performance measurements: https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/blob/master/testcases/Are-we-fast-yet/Are-we-fast-yet_results_linux.pdf. Compiling to CIL is very fast and the time Mono needs to compile and run is barely noticable.

> annoying aspects was requiring the .NET runtime ... OpenJDK is a blessed implementation in a way that Mono never was

Which is unjustified, because Mono CLR is just a single executable less than 5 MB which you can download and run without a complicated installation process (see e.g. https://github.com/rochus-keller/Oberon/#binary-versions ). AOT compilation on the other hand is a huge and complex installation depending on a lot of stuff including LLVM, and the resulting executables are not really smaller than the CLR + mscorlib + app.