Thread View: comp.lang.functional
6 messages
6 total messages
Started by Mark Allsop
Fri, 24 May 1991 10:41
SML optimisations / parallelism
Author: Mark Allsop
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 10:41
Date: Fri, 24 May 1991 10:41
23 lines
1661 bytes
1661 bytes
I'm currently researching computer vision analysis using functional programming methods, using SML as a compiler. We are using a 1989 compiler, and it is not especially fast. I know there is much potential for speed enhancement using functional languages, however I have as yet not found any information about this. Would anyone be able to enlighten me as to if SML is being developed on any parallel environment, and the sorts of speed increases such development brings. Also in terms of other environments, has SML been significantly changed or optimised since version of about 1989? Lastly, I would appreciate it if somewhere could tell me where such development is taking place. As a side issue, after reading the various manuals and trying a few tricks I can't overload functions using SML. Is this intentional or have I missed something along the way? Many thanks in advance, +Mark. -- Mark Allsop Computer Scientist email: mallsop@suna.mqcc.mq.oz.au The Statistical Laboratory Phone: At MacUni: (61 2) 805-8792 / \ Macquarie University, Australia Fax : : (61 2) 805-7433 | This one goes up to 11.....
TIM and SECD
Author: Tom Affinito
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:50
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:50
24 lines
1468 bytes
1468 bytes
Question from a novice: I'm trying to get an intuition for Fairburn & Wray's TIM machine. I've read their '87 paper, and am familar with SECD, SKI reduction, and the G-machine. What I'm trying to get is some deep feeling on how TIM relates to SECD and SKI reduction. It seems to me that TIM is very similar to what compiled code for an SECD system would be like....a series of instructions for manipulating the stacks, building environments, and storing partial results. Is the difference solely in the fact that environments need not be created in TIM because of the preliminary lambda-lifting phase? IE, if SECD had had a supercombinator preprocessor, might it have looked like TIM? In what ways do SECD + graph reduction = TIM? In what ways should that = be <>? (Abstractly of course) Any flames, impressions, or weird musings are most welcome!! :) Tom Affinito taff@kate.ucsc.edu ----------------------------------------------- function for an arbitrary permutation of a vector argument in J: p =. @:~?&!&# Wow!
Landin Ping
Author: Tom Affinito
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:55
Date: Thu, 30 May 1991 23:55
12 lines
703 bytes
703 bytes
What ever happened to Peter Landin? He wrote some amazing papers in the 60's, then ..... a curious admirer, Tom Affinito taff@kate.ucsc.edu -------------------------------------- how to build a fahrenheit to celsius conversion function, given a celsius to fahrenheit function, in J: fToC =. cToF^:_1 Wow!!
Re: Landin Ping
Author: Arshad Mahmood
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 09:02
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 09:02
23 lines
1316 bytes
1316 bytes
In article <16373@darkstar.ucsc.edu> taff@ucsc.edu (Tom Affinito) writes: >What ever happened to Peter Landin? He wrote some amazing papers in the 60's, >then ..... > >a curious admirer, Peter is alive and well (or at least was about three years ago when I last saw him), and working at Queen Mary and Westfield College in London. He continues to do work in functional programming and teaches a second year course on abstraction in programming. Unfortunately he doesn't use computers so you'll probably need to use snail-mail to get in touch with him. Prof Peter Landin Department of Computer Science Queen Mary and Westfield College University of London Mile End Road London E1 >Tom Affinito A. Mahmood Edinburgh U.
Re: Landin Ping
Author: Ted Dunning
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 21:20
Date: Fri, 31 May 1991 21:20
13 lines
1057 bytes
1057 bytes
In article <11765@skye.cs.ed.ac.uk> arshad@cs.ed.ac.uk (Arshad Mahmood) writes: <about peter landin> He continues to do work in functional programming and teaches a second year course on abstraction in programming. Unfortunately he doesn't use computers so you'll probably need to use snail-mail to get in touch with him. does anybody find this as humorous as i?
Re: TIM and SECD
Author: Torben [gidius Mogensen
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1991 12:32
Date: Tue, 04 Jun 1991 12:32
25 lines
1862 bytes
1862 bytes
taff@ucsc.edu (Tom Affinito) writes: >I'm trying to get an intuition for Fairburn & Wray's TIM machine. I've read >their '87 paper, and am familar with SECD, SKI reduction, and the G-machine. >What I'm trying to get is some deep feeling on how TIM relates to SECD and SKI >reduction. It seems to me that TIM is very similar to what compiled code for an >SECD system would be like....a series of instructions for manipulating the >stacks, building environments, and storing partial results. Is the difference >solely in the fact that environments need not be created in TIM because of the >preliminary lambda-lifting phase? IE, if SECD had had a supercombinator >preprocessor, might it have looked like TIM? >In what ways do SECD + graph reduction = TIM? In what ways should that = be <>? >(Abstractly of course) Indeed, there is a lot of similarity between TIM and SECD, and yes, if you used a name-free form for lambda expressions (supercombinators or deBruin notation), SECD is even closer to TIM. The main difference is that SECD is a call-by-value abstract machine, which can be modified to call-by-need by the delay/force mechanism, whereas TIM is a call-by-name abstract machine, which can be modified to call-by-need by the marker mechanism. Torben Mogensen (torbenm@diku.dk)
Thread Navigation
This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.
Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.
Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.
Back to All Threads