HackerTrans
TopNewTrendsCommentsPastAskShowJobs

matthewfl

no profile record

comments

matthewfl
·11 месяцев назад·discuss
Author here.

In picking Clojure, there were two main things that I was looking for in a language: compile-time macros and a runtime eval function. The reason for wanting compile time macros is that without them, you essentially create another DSL to generate code in you language of choice (e.g. tablegen and pdll in the llvm project). As such I was mainly considering at LISP-like language for the implementation of dyna3. Clojure's emphasis on immutable data structures also fit nicely with the design for R-exprs.

Lack of types in Clojure wasn't an issue in terms of getting things working. However, I did end up getting very annoyed with the runtime speed and quality of the generated code from the Clojure implementation. Features such as `^:dynamic` and `defprotocol` were too slow, so I rolled my own by wrapping a Java class and using macros. I also had to replace Clojure's builtin map with my own implementation of a map for performance-critical code. The R-exprs themselves are implemented using `deftype`, which generates a Java class rather than using maps to hold the relevant data.
matthewfl
·11 месяцев назад·discuss
Author here.

Chapter 2 of my dissertation covers a lot about the syntax of Dyna https://matthewfl.com/papers/mfl-dissertation.pdf

As refset said in the other comment, In Dyna, terms return values like a function in a functional programming language. Hence, when you write

  word(I)
this returns the value defined by the `word` function. E.g.

  word(0) = "Hello".
This is different from typical logic programming languages like Prolog in that if you write

  foo(X, bar(Y))
then you are "calling" the term `foo`, but then `bar` ends up being a structured-term that gets unified with the second argument of `foo`. Prolog provides this shortcut as "calling" `bar` doesn't make sense in this case, as `bar` only would return the value `true`, which isn't particularly useful.

In Dyna, we provide square brackets to create structured-terms as both calling the term "bar" and creating the structured-term bar can be useful. E.g. the Prolog expression `foo(X, bar(Y))` would be equivalent to the dyna `foo(X, bar[Y])`.

For the aggregator `max=`, this is looping over the different possible values on the right-hand-side and selecting the value that is the max. Hence in

  phrase(X,I,K) max= phrase(Y,I,K) \* rule(X,Y).
this is looping over the variable `Y` and selecting the one that is maximal. Using `max=` on

  phrase(X,I,I+1) max= rule(X, word(I)).
is done because we want all of the right-hand-sides to use the same aggregator so that we can aggregate between different rules that contribute to `phrase/3`.
matthewfl
·11 месяцев назад·discuss
The focus of this work was a research project. IMO, a mature system would require a several more person years of work. However, there is nothing stopping you from using it in a production system if you find it useful (there is a python, clojure, and java api).
matthewfl
·11 месяцев назад·discuss
It's nice to discover my PhD research trending on Hacker news.

https://matthewfl.com/phd

https://matthewfl.com/papers/mfl-dissertation.pdf

https://github.com/argolab/dyna3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXRvba2yjY0