Unipycation: a case study in cross-language tracing

ABSTRACT

Language composition approaches have traditionally suffered from poor performance. In this paper we hypothesise that meta-tracing provides a means to compose independent language interpreters while retaining the performance levels of each. To study this approach, we compose Python and Prolog interpreters to form Unipycation. We present a case study of its use and a suite of micro-benchmarks which give us some understanding of its cross-language performance.

References

1. V. Bala, E. Duesterwald, and S. Banerjia. Dynamo: A transparent dynamic optimization system. SIGPLAN, 35(5):1--12, 2000.
2. M. Bebenita, F. Brandner, M. Fahndrich, F. Logozzo, W. Schulte, N. Tillmann, and H. Venter. SPUR: A trace-based JIT compiler for CIL. In Proc. OOPSLA, pages 708--725, 2010.
3. C. F. Bolz, A. Cuni, M. Fijałkowski, M. Leuschel, S. Pedroni, and A. Rigo. Allocation removal by partial evaluation in a tracing JIT. Proc. PEPM, pages 43--52, 2011.
4. C. F. Bolz, A. Cuni, M. Fijałkowski, M. Leuschel, S. Pedroni, and A. Rigo. Runtime feedback in a meta-tracing JIT for efficient dynamic languages. In Proc. ICOOOLPS, page 9:1--9:8, 2011.
5. C. F. Bolz, A. Cuni, M. Fijałkowski, and A. Rigo. Tracing the meta-level: PyPy's tracing JIT compiler. In Proc. ICOOOLPS, pages 18--25, 2009.
6. C. F. Bolz, M. Leuschel, and D. Schneider. Towards a Jitting VM for prolog execution. In Proc. PPDP, pages 99--108, 2010.
7. C. F. Bolz and L. Tratt. The impact of meta-tracing on VM design and implementation. To appear SCICO, 2013.
8. I. Bratko. Prolog programming for artificial intelligence. Addison Wesley, 2001.
9. M. Bravenboer and E. Visser. Concrete syntax for objects. domain-specific language embedding and assimilation without restrictions. In Proc. OOPSLA, pages 365--383, 2004.
10. L. Cardelli, F. Matthes, and M. Abadi. Extensible grammars for language specialization. In Workshop on Database Programming Languages, pages 11--31, 1993.
11. J. Castanos, D. Edelsohn, K. Ishizaki, P. Nagpurkar, T. Nakatani, T. Ogasawara, and P. Wu. On the benefits and pitfalls of extending a statically typed language JIT compiler for dynamic scripting languages. pages 195--212, Oct. 2012.
12. T. E. Cheatham. Motivation for extensible languages. SIGPLAN, 4(8):45--49, Aug. 1969.
13. E. Denti, A. Omicini, and A. Ricci. tuProlog: a light-weight prolog for internet applications and infrastructures. In Proc. PADL, volume 1990, pages 184--198. 2001.
14. M. D'Hondt, K. Gybels, and V. Jonckers. Seamless integration of rule-based knowledge and object-oriented functionality with linguistic symbiosis. Proc. SAC, pages 1328--1335, 2004.
15. L. Diekmann and L. Tratt. Parsing composed grammars with language boxes. In Workshop on Scalable Language Specifications, 2013.
16. D. J. Edwards and T. P. Hart. The alpha-beta heuristic. Technical Report AIM-30, MIT, 1961.
17. A. Gal, B. Eich, M. Shaver, D. Anderson, D. Mandelin, M. R. Haghighat, B. Kaplan, G. Hoare, B. Zbarsky, J. Orendorff, J. Ruderman, E. W. Smith, R. Reitmaier, M. Bebenita, M. Chang, and M. Franz. Trace-based Just-In-Time type specialization for dynamic languages. In Proc. PLDI, pages 465--478, 2009.
18. A. Gal, C. W. Probst, and M. Franz. HotpathVM: an effective JIT compiler for resource-constrained devices. In Proc. VEE, pages 144--153, 2006.
19. K. Gybels. SOUL and Smalltalk - just married: evolution of the interaction between a logic and an object-oriented language towards symbiosis. In Proc. DP-COOL, 2003.
20. P. Hudak. Building domain-specific embedded languages. ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4), 1996.
21. D. Ingalls, T. Kaehler, J. Maloney, S. Wallace, and A. Kay. Back to the future: the story of Squeak, a practical Smalltalk written in itself. In Proc. OOPSLA, pages 318--326, 1997.
22. E. T. Irons. Experience with an extensible language. Communications of the ACM, 13(1):31--40, 1970.
23. K. Ishizaki, T. Ogasawara, J. Castanos, P. Nagpurkar, D. Edelsohn, and T. Nakatani. Adding dynamically-typed language support to a statically-typed language compiler: Performance evaluation, analysis, and tradeoffs. In VEE, pages 169--180. ACM, 2012.
24. G. F. Johnson and C. N. Fischer. A meta-language and system for nonlocal incremental attribute evaluation in language-based editors. In Proc. POPL, pages 141--151, 1985.
25. R. A. Kelsey and J. A. Rees. A tractable Scheme implementation. Lisp Symb. Comput., 7(4):315--335, 1994.
26. A. Rigo and S. Pedroni. PyPy's approach to virtual machine construction. In Proc. DLS, pages 944--953, 2006.
27. G. L. Steele, Jr. Growing a language. HOSC, 12(3):221--236, 1999.
28. G. T. Sullivan, D. L. Bruening, I. Baron, T. Garnett, and S. Amarasinghe. Dynamic native optimization of interpreters. In Workshop on Interpreters, Virtual Machines and Emulators, pages 50--57, 2003.
29. L. Tratt. Domain specific language implementation via compile-time meta-programming. TOPLAS, 30(6):1--40, 2008.
30. J. von Neumann. Zur Theorie der Gesellschaftsspiele. Mathematische Annalen, 100(1):295--320, 1928.
31. J. von Neumann. Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press, 1944.
32. A. Yermolovich, C. Wimmer, and M. Franz. Optimization of dynamic languages using hierarchical layering of virtual machines. In Proc. DLS, pages 79--88, 2009.

Index Terms

• Software and its engineering

  • Software notations and tools

    • Compilers

      • Runtime environments