NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/comp/lang/function/962

Text File | 1992-07-27 | 3.5 KB | 73 lines

Newsgroups: comp.lang.functional
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!sunic!kth.se!dentex.tds.kth.se!kff
From: [e-mail] (Karl-Filip Faxen)
Subject: Re: Predicting efficiency from theoretical models (Re: ** LAZY LANGUAGES FASTER?? **)
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (Usenet)
Nntp-Posting-Host: dentex.tds.kth.se
Reply-To: [e-mail] (Karl-Filip Faxen)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:57:28 GMT
Lines: 59

In article <[e-mail]>, [e-mail] (Chet Murthy) writes:

|> Anybody thought about the question of _why_ CBV is more efficient?

[Stuff deleted...]

|> In the end, it came down for me to something disgustingly applied -
|> the frequency of expressions which are weak-head-normalizable to
|> closure-free objects (i.e. which compute to data-values) is very high
|> in normal programs - so CBV wins because it "represents" them
|> efficiently - as the values they denote.

Well, I would like to put it in a slightly different way:

(1) In CBN, the value of a variable may or may not already
    be evaluated. A strict primitive, like integer add, needs its
    argument in evaluated form. Hence in an expression like `x+y',
    both arguments needs to be tested, and perhaps evaluated, before
    the addition is performed. This incurrs two costs relative to CBV:

    (a) The run time test is not needed in CBV, since variables are
        only allowed to denote fully evaluated objects.

    (b) A variable must be able to represent not only all objects of
        its type, but also all possible ways of evaluating such objects
        (all possible closures). Thus if a variable is implemented as a
        machine word, either there will be fewer objects of its type
        than bit patterns in a machine word (which is a pain in the
        behind when it comes to ints or floats), or some (or all) values
        in the type have to be stored in the heap and represented as
        pointers (all values must be boxed) which wastes storage and
        instructions (to move data between the heap and the CPU).

(2) Optimizations such as register allocation and static instruction
    scheduling depends on the compiler being able figure out what the
    program will do when run. Every conditional branch is one more place
    where the compiler has to assume the worst. Thus these carry indirect
    costs as well as the direct cost of executing them.

(3) It may be expensive to allocate, initialize and in general manipulate
    the closures. Especially since these are generally in the heap, they
    may well destroy locality, resulting in a thrashing data cache.

Unfortunately, effects such as (1b), (2) and the locality loss in (3) are
not accounted for by standard complexity theory. They just slips between
your fingers if you're only counting the number of operations a program
will execute since on a modern computer, the cost of an operation in
general depends on its context, what operations preceede and follow it in
the dynamic instruction stream, when, where and by whom its operands were
computed and when, where and by whom its result will be used.

|> I mean, for a theoretician, there seems to be no really good answer.

I think that is a sure sign that there is a lot of new and interesting
theory to be done in this field!

Karl-Filip
----------------------------------------------------------------
Make the frequent case fast, and the fast case frequent!