HackerTrans
トップ新着トレンドコメント過去質問紹介求人

atgreen

634 カルマ登録 14 年前
https://ca.linkedin.com/in/green

投稿

Performance improvements in libffi

atgreen.github.io
48 ポイント·投稿者 atgreen·20 日前·9 コメント

Show HN: Whistler – a Lisp that compiles to eBPF

github.com
3 ポイント·投稿者 atgreen·4 か月前·0 コメント

Bending the CLOS Mop for Java-Style Single Dispatch

atgreen.github.io
8 ポイント·投稿者 atgreen·5 か月前·2 コメント

Show HN: Interactive Common Lisp: An Enhanced REPL

github.com
101 ポイント·投稿者 atgreen·7 か月前·9 コメント

コメント

atgreen
·昨日·議論
VISA open sourced an expense-to-run harness they developed under glasswing, and I used that as the basis of a skill that I've found to be pretty effective with Claude Code: https://github.com/atgreen/secscan-skill
atgreen
·19 日前·議論
TBH, the complexity of this step grew over time, and the overhead snuck up on us. The prep step does useful work (eg. determine stack space requirements). It's just that we don't have to do it again.

Something I should have mentioned is that we could have avoided the new APIs if only there was space in the ffi_cif to stash a plan pointer. And I didn't want to break ABIs for this.
atgreen
·19 日前·議論
Yes, that's part of what was done here. So, create a plan, and then for some subset of plans, create AOT-compiled templates. The analogies are: a) original implementation is like interpreting via walking a syntax tree b) building/caching an execution plan is like interpreting by executing bytecode generated from the syntax tree c) using an AOT-compiled template is like execution from qemu's old TCG template system But we only do (c) for a popular subset of function signatures. The biggest win was (b), but (c) is still an improvement over (b).
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
Here's another option.. I created an optimizing eBPF compiler in Common Lisp for a lisp-ish DSL. It's nice because you can compile and load your eBPF code all in-process in lisp (even from your REPL) without any external tooling. https://github.com/atgreen/Whistler
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
No, they are different. I just bundled them together for convenience in this POC. The only real thing in common is that they both use eBPF.
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
Have a look at https://github.com/atgreen/rhel-block-copyfail
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
Don't disagree, but there are eBPF mitigations that work as alternatives to unloading kernel modules.
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
I created something similar earlier today: https://github.com/atgreen/block-copyfail
atgreen
·2 か月前·議論
This is not my experience. I've been experimenting with something very similar to vera. However my language transpiles into multiple languages (Java, Typescript, Common Lisp, Rust, C++, Python, C# and Swift). The transpiler is written in the language itself (there's a separate bootstrap transpiler written in Common Lisp). But where I'm going is that Claude, at least, is extremely capable at writing decent code in my new language with barely any prompting; just minimal guidance on the language itself and no examples.
atgreen
·3 か月前·議論
I enjoyed reading this. Thank you for sharing.

I learned Common Lisp years ago while working in the AI lab at the University of Toronto, and parts of this article resonated strongly with me.

However, if you abandon the idea of REPL-driven development, then the frontier models from Anthropic and OpenAI are actually very capable of writing Lisp code. They struggle sometimes editing it (messing up parens)), but usually the first pass is pretty good.

I've been on an LLM kick the past few months, and two of my favorite AI-coded (mostly) projects are, interestingly, REPL-focused. icl (https://github.com/atgreen/icl) is a TUI and browser-based front end for your CL REPL designed to make REPL programming for humans more fun, whether you use it stand-alone, or as an Emacs companion. Even more fun is whistler (https://github.com/atgreen/whistler), which allows you to write/compile/load eBPF code in lisp right from your REPL. In this case, the AI wrote the highly optimizing SSA-based compiler from scratch, and it is competitive against (and sometimes beating) clang -O2. I mean... I say the AI wrote it... but I had to tell it what I wanted in some detail. I start every project by generating a PRD, and then having multiple AIs review that until we all agree that it makes sense, is complete enough, and is the right approach to whatever I'm doing.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
Thank you!
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
The whistler code you inline with your common lisp is an s-expression based DSL. So you can use common lisp macros, but those macros are generating something that will look familiar to CL devs but is restricted based on the eBPF archictecture and validator requirements. eg. it only supports bounded `dotimes`, some basic progn/let/when/if/cond/eq/setf/incf/decf and math, and a simple array iterator. No lists, loops, tagbody/go, conditions, etc, etc. There's a manual in the docs directory.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
They are much better these days.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
256k is just's just a placeholder for now. The default will get reduced as we get more experience with the draft implementation. The proposal isn't complete yet.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
I haven't really looked into it, but I'm hopeful it can be made to work.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
No. I have yet to propose the patches formally. The SBCL maintainers are reviewing the high-level proposal (on my blog) first. You can try the implementation, however. There's a pointer to the repo/branch on my blog. I need to build a proper benchmarking framework and publish some real numbers that people can reproduce before I am confident enough to submit the patches for review.

Let me know if you try it out. I would love some feedback (via github)
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
This very website that you are using right now, Hacker News, runs on sbcl.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
I'm the author. https://atgreen.github.io/repl-yell/posts/sbcl-fibers/
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
I set out to create a better text repl experience for Common Lisp couple of months ago, but was inspired by the pharo interface and built something much larger: https://atgreen.github.io/icl/ I use it all the time.
atgreen
·4 か月前·議論
It's like Dr Ian Malcolm says.. "Your developers were so preoccupied with whether or not they could, they didn't stop to think if they should" - Jurrasic Park (almost)