Is there any portable (Win, OSX) Scheme implementation which can distribute and preempt cpu-intensive threads over several processors / cores? I am looking to port some number-crunching thing from Python and I'd love to avoid C++.
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:32:35 AM UTC-4, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Is there any portable (Win, OSX) Scheme implementation which can distribute and preempt cpu-intensive threads over several processors / cores? I am looking to port some number-crunching thing from Python and I'd love to avoid C++.
Racket [1] provides facilities for using multiple processors and cores, in the form of futures [2] and places [3].
On Friday, September 21, 2012 8:39:27 PM UTC+2, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Racket [1] provides facilities for using multiple processors and cores, in the form of futures [2] and places [3].
I have had a look at Racket before, but
1) threads do not work for me
2) futures look a little like black magic (according to the guide, paragraph 18.10) and it's hard to predict whether they will really run in parallel, or what you can do about it
3) places will most likely not permit to share top-level variables (at least in Windows where fork() does not work as in *nix).
Does any of these permit at least read access to global variables? I know this is not recommended, but in my case it is the easiest solution without refactoring the whole program.
On Friday, September 21, 2012 4:11:24 PM UTC-4, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> On Friday, September 21, 2012 8:39:27 PM UTC+2, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> > Racket [1] provides facilities for using multiple processors and cores, in the form of futures [2] and places [3].
> I have had a look at Racket before, but
> 1) threads do not work for me
> 2) futures look a little like black magic (according to the guide, paragraph 18.10) and it's hard to predict whether they will really run in parallel, or what you can do about it
> 3) places will most likely not permit to share top-level variables (at least in Windows where fork() does not work as in *nix).
> Does any of these permit at least read access to global variables? I know this is not recommended, but in my case it is the easiest solution without refactoring the whole program.
Futures are true shared-memory, and thus support read and write access to all variables. Depending on your application, futures can be very effective even if they don't guarantee parallelism. Number-crunching is a particular strength here -- see this benchmark for an example: https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/collects/tests/racket/bench...
On Friday, September 21, 2012 11:56:01 PM UTC+2, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
> Futures are true shared-memory, and thus support read and write access to all variables. Depending on your application, futures can be very effective even if they don't guarantee parallelism. Number-crunching is a particular strength here -- see this benchmark for an example: https://github.com/plt/racket/blob/master/collects/tests/racket/bench...
On Fri, 21 Sep 2012 08:32:35 -0700, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Is there any portable (Win, OSX) Scheme implementation which can
> distribute and preempt cpu-intensive threads over several processors /
> cores? I am looking to port some number-crunching thing from Python and
> I'd love to avoid C++.
Chez Scheme can do this. In particular, I am currently implementing a high-performance lightweight threading system based on a work stealing deque and atomic CAS operations. It's for an implementation of APL on top of Scheme, and it should do quite well for number crunching. If you are interested, I would love to have real world code to benchmark.
-- Aaron W. Hsu | arcf...@sacrideo.us | http://www.sacrideo.us Programming is just another word for the lost art of thinking.
On Monday, September 24, 2012 8:27:30 AM UTC+2, Aaron W. Hsu wrote:
> Chez Scheme can do this. In particular, I am currently implementing a > high-performance lightweight threading system based on a work stealing > deque and atomic CAS operations. It's for an implementation of APL on top > of Scheme, and it should do quite well for number crunching. If you are > interested, I would love to have real world code to benchmark.
Indeed it seems to fit, according to the docs. But I seem to be unable to even get a price quotation for Chez Scheme, and Petite does not fit here.
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 9:09:22 AM UTC-4, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Indeed it seems to fit, according to the
> docs. But I seem to be unable to even get a
> price quotation for Chez Scheme, and Petite
> does not fit here.
For a price quotation, talk to info at scheme dot com.
On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:45:56 PM UTC+2, John Cowan wrote:
> For a price quotation, talk to info at scheme dot com.
That's what I did. The answer was:
"Thank you for your interest in Chez Scheme. Cadence Research Systems is now a part of Cisco Systems. Over time, Chez Scheme will be integrated into Cisco's offerings. As new updates become available, our team will contact you directly."
On Friday, September 21, 2012 6:32:35 PM UTC+3, Patrick Useldinger wrote:
> Is there any portable (Win, OSX) Scheme implementation which can distribute and preempt cpu-intensive threads over several processors / cores? I am looking to port some number-crunching thing from Python and I'd love to avoid C++.
You can try ShedSkin it will automatically generate C++ code from your Python source along with a Make file.
> On Wednesday, September 26, 2012 6:45:56 PM UTC+2, John Cowan wrote:
>> For a price quotation, talk to info at scheme dot com.
> That's what I did. The answer was:
> "Thank you for your interest in Chez Scheme. Cadence Research
> Systems is now a part of Cisco Systems. Over time, Chez Scheme will
> be integrated into Cisco's offerings. As new updates become
> available, our team will contact you directly."
Reminds me of the saying: "Good things come to those who wait." Well...
