1. 18

  2. 3

    Cool! Sounds a lot like Terra: https://terralang.org/

    1. 3

      Sham expressions are first-class objects in Racket […] Thus, we can build expressions for a complex DSL on the fly based on Racket values. One such example is to build a power function for a specific exponent n.

      (define (build-pow x n)
        (if (= n 0)
            (ui64 1)
            (mul x (build-pow x (- n 1)))))

      Wouldn’t it be better to compile to closures, when possible? Like this:

      (define (build-pow n)
        (if (= n 0)
            (sham-lambda (x: ui64): ui64
            (let ([rest (build-pow (- n 1))])
              (sham-lambda (x: ui64): ui64
                (* x (rest x))))))

      This seems more high-level, because I don’t have to think about ASTs or variable hygiene. I’ve wondered the same thing about Terra’s quotations.

      Are there cases when you really need this escape hatch?

      1. 4

        Oh, my. Perhaps they could use the keyword shambda? I’ll see myself out.

      2. 2

        Here’s a link to the actual paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2005.09028v2

        1. 2

          We present Sham, a toolkit designed to enable internal DSLs with high performance. Sham provides a domain-specific language (embedded in Racket) for implementing other high-performance DSLs, with transparent compilation to assembly code at runtime. Sham is well suited as both a compilation target for other embedded DSLs and for transparently replacing DSL support code with faster versions. Sham provides seamless inter-operation with its host language without requiring any additional effort from its users. Sham also provides a framework for defining language syntax which implements Sham’s own language interface as well.

          Racket implementation https://github.com/rjnw/sham