Compilation to js [Update]

Compilation to js [Update]

[Ian Price]

Hello guilers,

I figure it's time for an update on what I've been working on for the
past two weeks.

I have mainly been working on updating the compiler to go from the old
cps representation to the new cps-soup representation.

This had a few false starts, but on the third attempt, I think the
approach using the dominator functions in (language cps utils) is the
right way, and is giving the results I want. I intend to write a blog
post shortly explaining how dominators / cps-soup work and how to
compile from it for other people who may be interested in these low
level guile details.

Right now, you can find my code on gitlab[0] in the compile-to-js-2017
branch in the language/js-il and language/javascript directories[1].
What can you do with it? Well, I do not recommend trying to use this
seriously, since you will run into a large number of issues, relating
to residualising macros, missing prelude functions and possibly stack
overflows. That said, you can take some scheme files and compile them
with the usual functions, e.g.

(compile-file "/tmp/foo.scm" #:to 'javascript #:output-file "/tmp/foo.js")

You can see the output of mergesort (beautified) at
http://shift-reset.com/pastes/msort2017.js.html. In order to run it,
you will need to add the contents of runtime.js which can be found in
language/js-il. Other things you might try are non-local escapes with
call/cc and keyword/optional/case-lambda arguments.

What's next? Number 2 on my list from last time was
>  Complete porting boot-9 to js (in particular, the guile module system)
so this is what I intend to do. This will allow us to run much more
complicated programs, and you won't need to keep reimplementing
functions like map.

Another issue is with macros, which are not being residualised now
that their representation was changed, so I'll do that too.

Till next update,
Ian


[0] https://gitlab.com/ijp/guile/tree/compile-to-js-2017.
[1] Compilation to js-il is in language/cps/compile-js.scm

Re: Compilation to js [Update]

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1340 bytes --]

Hi Ian,

Ian Price <ianprice90@gmail.com> writes:

> I think the approach using the dominator functions in (language cps
> utils) is the right way, and is giving the results I want. I intend to
> write a blog post shortly explaining how dominators / cps-soup work
> and how to compile from it for other people who may be interested in
> these low level guile details.

That sounds great!

> That said, you can take some scheme files and compile them with the
> usual functions, e.g.
>
> (compile-file "/tmp/foo.scm" #:to 'javascript #:output-file "/tmp/foo.js")

Is there already a clean way to run javascript functions from scheme —
for example accessing the DOM? That would directly allow pure Guile web
development.

> What's next? Number 2 on my list from last time was
>>  Complete porting boot-9 to js (in particular, the guile module system)
> so this is what I intend to do. This will allow us to run much more
> complicated programs, and you won't need to keep reimplementing
> functions like map.
>
> Another issue is with macros, which are not being residualised now
> that their representation was changed, so I'll do that too.

What does residualization of macros mean? (I feel I’m missing language here).

Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]

not being residualised

[ff]

Another issue is with macros, which are not being residualised now
>
> What does residualization of macros mean? (I feel I’m missing language here).
>


dude, me too!

Re: Compilation to js [Update]

[Ian Price]

I would like to be able to access Javascript functions from Scheme,
possibly with a (system foreign) type API, but this is not a priority
at the moment. Getting as much of Scheme as possible working is the
main thing. On my list, you could put it as the unspoken 5th stage.


As for residualisation, it's not a technical term. More accurate
terminology would be serialisation of syntax objects. Maybe you can
interpret my use of "residue", as being partly negative, as residue is
something left over at the end of a process. Syntax objects are quite
big, (in one experiment I did today, it was half the size of the
output) and if possible, I'd like to avoid emitting them, where
possible, since this is going to be sent over the network.

Re: Compilation to js [Update]

[Mark H Weaver]

Ian Price <ianprice90@gmail.com> writes:

> As for residualisation, it's not a technical term. More accurate
> terminology would be serialisation of syntax objects. Maybe you can
> interpret my use of "residue", as being partly negative, as residue is
> something left over at the end of a process. Syntax objects are quite
> big, (in one experiment I did today, it was half the size of the
> output) and if possible, I'd like to avoid emitting them, where
> possible, since this is going to be sent over the network.

You might want to look at 'squeeze-syntax-object' in
ice-9/compile-psyntax.scm, which we use to reduce the size of
psyntax-pp.scm.  Unfortunately, this breaks 'datum->syntax' in the
general case.

     Regards,
       Mark

Re: not being residualised

[Mark H Weaver]

ff <firefox@firemail.cc> writes:

> Another issue is with macros, which are not being residualised now
>>
>> What does residualization of macros mean? (I feel I’m missing language here).
>>
>
>
> dude, me too!

Please post messages only if you have something useful to add, or a
coherent question to ask.  This is a good rule for any public mailing
list.  As I recall, Ludovic made a similar request to you on one of the
Guix lists.

      Thanks,
        Mark

Re: Compilation to js [Update]

[Arne Babenhauserheide]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 982 bytes --]


Ian Price <ianprice90@gmail.com> writes:

> I would like to be able to access Javascript functions from Scheme,
> possibly with a (system foreign) type API, but this is not a priority
> at the moment. Getting as much of Scheme as possible working is the
> main thing. On my list, you could put it as the unspoken 5th stage.

ok. Thank you!

> As for residualisation, it's not a technical term. More accurate
> terminology would be serialisation of syntax objects. Maybe you can
> interpret my use of "residue", as being partly negative, as residue is
> something left over at the end of a process. Syntax objects are quite
> big, (in one experiment I did today, it was half the size of the
> output) and if possible, I'd like to avoid emitting them, where
> possible, since this is going to be sent over the network.

Ah, the residuum is something I know :)

Sounds great!

Best wishes,
Arne
-- 
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 832 bytes --]