I work on computational music. I have found the ps13 pitch spelling algorithm implemented in Lisp in 2003, precisely "Digitool MCL 4.3". I would like to run this code, preferably on a Linux x86 machine, to compare its results with other similar codes.
I am new to Lisp, but so far my research led me to think that Digitool MCL is no longer available. I thought of two ways which may help me:
a virtual environment (Docker or else) which would emulate a machine from 2003…
a code translation tool which would transform the 2003 source code into something executable today
I have not succeeded in finding one of these two options, nor running it directly with sbcl (but, as a newbie, I may have missed a small modification to make it run easily).
May someone help me?
Summary
This code is very close to being portable CL: you won't need something emulating an antique Mac to run it. I ran it on three implementations (SBCL, LispWorks, CCL) within a few minutes. However if you're not a Lisp person (and don't want to become one) it will be somewhat more fiddly to do that.
However I can't just send you a fixed version, both because this isn't the right forum for that, and also because we'd need to get the author's permission to do so. I have asked him if he would be interested in a portabalised version, and if he is, I will send him one in due course. You could also get in touch and ask to be notified.
(Meta-summary: while I think the question is fine, any reasonable answer probably doesn't fit on SO.)
Details
One initial problem with this code is that the file uses old Mac line end conventions (I think: not Unix anyway): unless whatever Lisp you're using is smart enough to spot this (some are, SBCL seems not to be although I am sure there are options to tell it) you'll need to convert it.
Given that, the code that implements this algorithm is very, very close to being portable Common Lisp. It has four dependencies on non-standard things:
two global variables, *save-local-symbols* and *verbose-eval-selection*;
two functions: choose-file-dialog and choose-directory-dialog.
The global variables can probably be safely commented out as I think they are just controls for the compiler, probably. The functions have fairly obvious specifications: they're obviously meant to pop up file / directory choosers.
However you can just not use the bits of the code that use these functions, so you can compile it, get a few compiler warnings about undefined functions, and then it's fine.
But it gets better than that in fact: the latter-day descendant of MCL is Clozure CL: CCL is free, and open source. CCL has both choose-file-dialog and choose-directory-dialog already and both of the globals exist although one is no longer exported.
Unfortunately there are then some hidden portability problems to do with assumptions about what pathnames look like as strings: it's making some assumption about what things looked like on pre-OSX Macs I think. This kind of problem is easy but often a bit fiddly to fix (I think in this case it would be easy). So, again, the answer to that is just not call the things that are doing a lot of pathname munging:
> (ps13-test-from-file-list (directory "~/Downloads/d/*.opnd"))
[... much output ...]
Total number of errors = 81.
Total number of notes = 41544.
Percentage correct = 99.81%
nil
Note that the above output came from LispWorks, not CCL: CCL works just as well though, as will any CL probably.
SBCL has one additional problem: the CL-USER package in SBCL already uses a package which exports int which is defined in this code. So you need to compile it in some other package. But given that, it's fine in SBCL as well.
Related
Is there a good cross-platform method for determining the number of processors a machine has in elisp? I'm trying to make my config auto detect some build options, and would like to have it automatically use the number of processors + 1. Grepping /proc/cpuinfo isn't a solution for me because it won't work on Windows.
Emacs 24.3 Lisp doesn't have access to that information. Your options would seem to include:
writing an Elisp library which uses the value of SYSTEM-TYPE to choose a system-specific method for getting the processor count;
modifying the Emacs C source and rebuilding it so that it can, for each potentially multiprocessor platform on which Emacs builds, expose the processor count at the Lisp level.
At least, that was true four hours ago, when I first started writing this answer. But then I got interested in the problem, and now you have a third option:
downloading my system-cores.el library, which implements the first of the two options above, and calling (system-cores :physical) to get the number of physical processors, (system-cores :logical) to get the number of logical cores, or just plain (system-cores) to get an alist containing both.
Caveats include:
This library relies strongly on the PROCESS-LINES function. If that function can't do anything sensible in the context where you need to call SYSTEM-CORES, then SYSTEM-CORES can't either. (For example, if you're on Darwin and (getenv "PATH") doesn't contain /usr/sbin, PROCESS-LINES will bomb out with "Searching for program: no such file or directory, system_profiler".)
The systems currently known to be supported are GNU/Linux (anything with /proc/cpuinfo, more or less), Windows NT (and its derivatives, including 2000, XP, and all subsequent versions), and Darwin (OS X, at least 10.8, theoretically as far back as 10.2). Not coincidentally, these are also the systems to which I have access.
I've also included a delegate which should work properly on at least some flavors of BSD, but I don't have a BSD box on which to test it, so there's no telling whether or not it'll really work -- at the very least, you'll almost certainly need to modify the list of sysctls examined by the SYSTEM-CORES-SYSCTL delegate.
If you're using a modern variety of Linux, Windows, or OS X, great! You should be good to go, right out of the box. If not, and if your platform includes a command-line utility which provides the requisite information in its results, then it shouldn't be hard to write a delegate for your system. Or, if you don't want to write a delegate yourself, then email me all of:
the proper invocation for the command-line utility in question
a sample of the output it produces on your system
the output of M-: system-type in Emacs
the output of M-: system-configuration in Emacs
and I'll be able to write a delegate myself and add it to the library.
Edit: The :cores and :processors keywords have been replaced with :physical and :logical, respectively; I couldn't keep them straight, and I don't see why I should expect anyone else to, either.
Edit: Per #lunaryorn, replaced (split-string (shell-command-to-string ...)) with (process-lines ...). This saves invoking a shell, which might make the library more reliable, and certainly makes its code easier to read.
I am using emacs 23 on two computers.
On both, dpkg -s emacs outputs the following version number.
However one has window.el and the other not. This make some function such as split-window behave differently. The help page of this function on the computer that apparently has not window.el installed reads that it comes from C source code instead.
Where does this difference comes from?
I prefer the behaviour of the one that says that split-window comes from window.el: it allows to specify the SIDE when splitting window and provide additional function such as window-resize.
I suppose this is the most recent one but I do not know how to check it nor how to upgrade the other to this state.
Library window.el is as old as the hills. Perhaps you meant that one of your Emacs installlations has window.elc but not window.el?
More likely, you are referring only to function split-window. Yes, it used to be a built-in function (i.e., defined in C), and now it is defined in window.el (which file exists also for the older Emacs versions where that function is a built-in).
FYI, lots of window and buffer-display stuff was changed around the same time as split-window was rewritten in Lisp. Lots of behaviors changed, in minor or major ways.
What is not at all clear is what the problem is that you are reporting. You ask, "Where does this difference comes from? How to fix it?" I've explained a bit about the difference. As for how to fix it -- what is the "it" that needs fixing, and what would the fixed behavior be like?
IOW, your question is, so far, unanswerable. If you specify things more exactly, perhaps we can help more.
I'm not certain what's going on with your debian packages, but if memory serves the readable .el(.gz) files are not supplied in the basic package, but in a separate package. This is because all you strictly need is the byte-compiled .elc files, so they can reduce the base package filesize by omitting them (at the expense of enabling you to read the elisp code).
Is M-x load-library RET window RET successful?
Note that Emacs 24 is the current stable version. You might want to upgrade.
Edit:
M-x emacs-version tells you which version of Emacs you're running, which will always give you a definitive answer.
(And if the versions are identical, then run emacs -Q to eliminate and site- and user-specific config files from the picture, as those are always a likely culprit for differing behaviours.)
Whether or not I compile a Racket program seems to make no difference to the runtime performance.
Is it just the loading of the file initially that is improved by compilation? In other words, does running racket src.rkt do a jit compilation on the fly, which is why I see no difference in compiling vs interactive?
Even for tight loops of integer arithmetic, where I thought some difference would occur, the profile times are equivalent whether or not I previously did a raco make.
Am I missing something simple?
PS, I notice that I can run racket against the source file (.rkt) or .zo file. Does racket automatically use the .zo if one is found that corresponds to the .rkt file, or does the .zo file need to be used explicitly? Either way, it makes no difference to the performance numbers I'm seeing.
Yes, you're right.
Racket compiles code in two stages: first, the code is compiled into bytecode form, and then when it runs it gets jitted into machine code. When you compile a file, you're basically creating the bytecode which saves on re-compiling it later. Since that's usually not something that takes a lot of time for small pieces of code, you won't see any noticeable difference in runtimes. For an extreme example, you can delete all *.zo files in the collection tree and start DrRacket -- it will take a lot of time to start since there's a ton of code, but once it does start, it would run almost as usual. (It would also be slow to click "run" since that will reload and recompile some files.) Another concern for bigger pieces of code is that the compilation process can make memory consumption higher, but that's also not an issue with smaller pieces of code.
See also the Performace chapter in the guide for hints on how to improve performance.
Racket will always compile your code, regardless of whether it is run interactively at the REPL or run from the command-line. Here is the section in the guide that explains it. In interactive mode, the compiler turns every expression/definition into bytecode in memory and executes that. Otherwise, the compilers outputs the bytecode to zo files.
Note: Eli replied at the same time I did. See his response for more details.
i have been working on a perl program to process large amounts of dna. It outputs exactly what i need however it takes much longer than i would like using NYTprof i have narrowed down the major problem areas to be the loop that adds my values together. would using inline::C to do the math make my program faster or should i accept the speed and move on? is there another way to improve the speed? here is my program and an input it would run as well as an executable with the default values entered already.
It's unlikely you'll get useful help here (this included). I can see various problems with your code, and none have to do with the choice of language.
use CPAN. If you're parsing genbank, then use some an appropriate module.
You're writing assembly in Perl, and neither Perl nor you are very good at that. It's near impossible to know what's going on when you don't pass parameters to subroutines, instead relying on globals all over the place. What do #X1, #X2, #Y1, #Y2 mean?
The following might be your problem: until ($ender - $starter > $tlength) { (line 153). According to your test case, these start by being 103, 1, and 200, and it's not clear when or if they change. Depending on what's in #te, it might or might not ever get out of the loop; I just can't tell from your code.
It would help if we knew, exactly, what are the parameters to add, the in-out invariants, and what it is returning.
That's all I got.
I second the recommendation of PDL made in a comment, if it's applicable. Or the use of a CPAN module tailored to your problem (again, if applicable).
I didn't see anything that looked unambiguously like "the loop that adds my values together" in that code; please, show just the code you are considering optimizing, ideally with just enough structure around it to actually run it.
So to answer your generic question generically, yes, Inline::C can be a useful tool for optimization if you are certain your performance problem is limited to what it actually can do for you. In using it, be aware that invoking your C code from Perl or vice versa is non-trivially expensive, so you have to have enough code translated to C to minimize the transitions.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
I'm getting the Lisp language easily enough, but I'm having trouble groking the mechanics of development. One of my issues is dealing with Emacs. I have no experience with it and find it generally confusing with hard to find/figure out commands.
Specific questions:
I get the REPL, but I don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Any tips would be greatly appreciated!
-I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I
need to change a function I have to
retype the defun and make changes
(tedious and error prone). How can I
do this better?
-How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program?
I'm used to the C model where you have
code files that you can review, edit
and recompile. I know lisp has
something similar (via the load
function), but how does one get a
function I just defined and tested
into a file to be saved? I'm hoping
there's a better method than my
current select+copy+paste.
Load SLIME. Enter code in your .lisp file, and then run slime-eval-buffer to load all your code into Lisp. Then, for a specific function you are hacking on C-e, C-j to redefine it in your running Lisp.
-How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
Yes. (trace 'my-function) - or some variant on that - and when my-function is called, it will break into the debugger.
-As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a
(defun ...). It's not until I try to
use it that I find out it's not valid.
Is there any way to get errors sooner
(i.e. compile the code)?
To some degree, that is a characteristic of dynamic languages (Python, Perl, Ruby, Lisp, etc.). Try SBCL for better error-checking.
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
Emacs is the free IDE for Lisp. Allegro has a free edition I believe; I've never tried it though..
-Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Nah, Scheme is not as pragmatic a language.
I'm an experienced C++/.NET/Java Windows/Web programmer trying to learn (Common) Lisp. I'm reading Practical Common Lisp and using SLIME.
One can also use the LispWorks Personal Edition for learning Lisp. It has some limitations and the full product is commercial, but it is quite a bit easier to use.
I get the REPL, but don't quite get how I can use it effectively. When I need to change a function I have to retype the defun and make changes (tedious and error prone). How can I do this better?
The REPL has a history. With keyboard commands you can get back prior input and change it. Other than that just edit a Lisp file and compile code from there. In Lisp you can compile/eval individual expressions and definitions. Typical IDEs like SLIME, LispWorks or Allegro CL allow you to run code also from normal Lisp text windows - additionally to executing expressions in the REPLA (aka Listener).
How do I get from entering code at the REPL to actually having a program? I'm used to the C model where you have code files that you can review, edit and recompile. I know Lisp has something similar (via the load function), but how does one get a function I just defined and tested into a file to be saved? I'm hoping there's a better method than my current select+copy+paste.
Copy and paste in one thing. But the correct way is to work from a text file in an editor window. One can compile/load expressions, the editor buffer or the associated file.
How do you debug errors? Is there any ability to step into code like I would with other languages?
See STEP, TRACE and related. SLIME, LispWorks and Allegro CL have lots of additional features.
As long as the S-expression is valid, I don't get any errors when entering a (defun ...). It's not until I try to use it that I find out it's not valid. Is there any way to get errors sooner (i.e. compile the code)?
For many cases one uses a compiler. The compiler will find a range of errors and also will note when something is unusual (for example a function does not exist or a variable has not been defined).
-Is there some IDE that would be more familiar to me or allow me to play with the language easier?
LispWorks, Allegro CL are the best under Windows. There are some alternatives like Corman Lisp (I don't know it is maintained right now) or even Ufasoft Lisp.
Should I switch to learning Scheme instead?
Not really.
It doesn't sound like you're really using SLIME, or at least not in the way it was intended to be used. ("have to retype the defun", "the C model where you have code files")
I recommend watching some SLIME screencasts (or, even better, watching a Lisp programmer use SLIME for a few minutes, if you have one handy). The SLIME webpage has a couple.
It sounds like you'd really enjoy the DrRacket IDE. Racket is closer to Scheme than to Common Lisp, but you could dip your toes into the Lisp family without the speed bump of the Emacs style of development.