cant VS julia

That was one of the short examples in Norvig's Python program-design course for Udacity. https://github.com/darius/cant/blob/master/library/regex-gen... (I don't have the Python handy.)

> figure out a way to do upward movement that doesn’t require annoying special casing. If you figure it out, don’t tell me since it means I’ll have to make more levels.

Don't read this, then: https://github.com/darius/cant/blob/master/examples/games/20...

As long as I'm commenting, here are some links to other console Sokobans I thought were fun (listed in the source code to mine). The sed one is nuts -- I had no idea it could do that: https://github.com/darius/cant/blob/master/examples/games/20...

I've done AoC using my own language before. As a task it's at a sweet spot for finding weaknesses in the language/library/implementation: real and varied enough to exercise your system, small chunks of work, lots of code to compare yours to, with fun and competitive juices.

The first time I did it it forced me to fix some major problems. My language would still be a handicap for me in the state it's in (though I did get on the leaderboard a couple times using it).

fwiw: https://github.com/darius/cant (haven't done this year's so far)

I've used my own hobby language Cant before, for a couple reasons: it's meant to be enjoyable to code in (at least for me), and tackling random problems like this is a good way to drive some improvements to it.

Also similar: the 'for' expression in Cant (search for "syntax: for").

Darius Bacon wrote a version of this in https://github.com/darius/cant/blob/master/library/factoring... where the "frontier" of active riders is stored in a hash table rather than a bin heap, which is almost certainly a more efficient approach. But he's not doing the bitmaps.

Thank you!

I dislike style nazis too, e.g. carping when Peter Norvig's code won't pass PEP 8.

I'm just leery of the expected cost in this kind of case. It can go on working for years until some new complication or some change in the ecosystem makes it suddenly create a really weird problem. Or when you want to try moving to a fancy new Python implementation, you find you have this friction. Matter of judgement where some chance of such messes is paid for by what it can do for you. (Of course when it's less "load bearing" the balance shifts.) With https://coverage.readthedocs.io/en/stable/ for example, it used bytecode hacks to do something you couldn't do otherwise, and that's unlikely to mess you up.

I have had old C programs go crazy years later in a really hard to debug way because newer compilers may interpret your code like your ex-wife's divorce lawyer (as Kragen put it, iirc). Back in the day a lot of us thought we had a different kind of relationship with C compilers, and it'd be fine to code to that informal social contract. (Just a loose analogy.)

I'm piddling away at https://github.com/darius/cant these days. (Some of the motivation was feeling too confined by Python, actually.) No Wasm, but I'm happy it exists! I tried to make a system like it 20 years ago (Idel) and gave up too soon.

Agreed. I used a few Rosetta Code problems in https://github.com/darius/cant/tree/master/examples and https://github.com/darius/cant/tree/master/library, but Rosetta is mostly things I don't care about.

Just for fun I tried it on my own toy language that nobody but me uses -- going to the limit in nicheness. E.g. Project Oiler problem #1 -- it's very wrong, but no shame in that.

34. Julia - $74,963

I don't believe there is any official documentation on this, but https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/49430 for example added prefetching to the marking phase of a GC which saw speedups on x86, but not on M1.

3. dispatch on all the arguments

the first solution is clean, but people really like dispatch.

the second makes calling functions in the function call syntax weird, because the first argument is privileged semantically but not syntactically.

the third makes calling functions in the method call syntax weird because the first argument is privileged syntactically but not semantically.

the closest things to this i can think of off the top of my head in remotely popular programming languages are: nim, lisp dialects, and julia.

nim navigates the dispatch conundrum by providing different ways to define free functions for different dispatch-ness. the tutorial gives a good overview: https://nim-lang.org/docs/tut2.html

lisps of course lack UFCS.

see here for a discussion on the lack of UFCS in julia: https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/31779

so to sum up the answer to the original question: because it's only obvious how to make it nice and tidy like you're wanting if you sacrifice function dispatch, which is ubiquitous for good reason!

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/blob/release-1.10/NEWS.md

Visit official site: https://julialang.org/

No. It runs natively on ARM.

julia> versioninfo() Julia Version 1.9.3 Commit bed2cd540a1 (2023-08-24 14:43 UTC) Build Info: Official https://julialang.org/ release

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/51086#issuecomment...

So while this "fixes" the issue, it'll introduce a confusing time delay between you freeing the memory and you observing that in `htop`.

But according to https://jemalloc.net/jemalloc.3.html you can set `opt.muzzy_decay_ms = 0` to remove the delay.

Still, the musl author has some reservations against making `jemalloc` the default:

https://www.openwall.com/lists/musl/2018/04/23/2

> It's got serious bloat problems, problems with undermining ASLR, and is optimized pretty much only for being as fast as possible without caring how much memory you use.

With the above-mentioned tunables, this should be mitigated to some extent, but the general "theme" (focusing on e.g. performance vs memory usage) will likely still mean "it's a tradeoff" or "it's no tradeoff, but only if you set tunables to what you need".

I have asked about Julia's reproducibility story on the Guix mailing list in the past, and at the time Simon Tournier didn't think it was promising. I seem to recall Julia itself didnt have a reproducible build. All I know now is that github issue is still not closed.

https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34753

I don't really know what kind of rebuttal you're looking for, but I will link my HN comments from when this was first posted for some thoughts: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31396861#31398796. As I said, in the linked post, I'm quite skeptical of the business of trying to assess relative buginess of programming in different systems, because that has strong dependencies on what you consider core vs packages and what exactly you're trying to do.

However, bugs in general suck and we've been thinking a fair bit about what additional tooling the language could provide to help people avoid the classes of bugs that Yuri encountered in the post.

The biggest class of problems in the blog post, is that it's pretty clear that `@inbounds` (and I will extend this to `@assume_effects`, even though that wasn't around when Yuri wrote his post) is problematic, because it's too hard to write. My proposal for what to do instead is at https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/pull/50641.

Another common theme is that while Julia is great at composition, it's not clear what's expected to work and what isn't, because the interfaces are informal and not checked. This is a hard design problem, because it's quite close to the reasons why Julia works well. My current thoughts on that are here: https://github.com/Keno/InterfaceSpecs.jl but there's other proposals also.

Doesn't musl have the same issue? https://github.com/JuliaLang/julia/issues/34726#issuecomment...

I also wonder about OSX's libc. Newer versions seem to have some sort of locking https://github.com/apple-open-source-mirror/Libc/blob/master...

but older versions (from 10.9) don't have any lockign: https://github.com/apple-oss-distributions/Libc/blob/Libc-99...