Comment by newzino

Comment by newzino 2 days ago

3 replies

View on Hacker News

Thanks for the detailed response. The interpreted approach makes sense for the use case - when you're embedding a scripting layer, you usually want simplicity and portability over raw speed anyway.

The aliasing semantics you describe (resizes propagating through aliases) is an interesting choice. It's closer to how references work in languages like Python than to the "borrow checker" approach Rust takes. Probably more intuitive for users coming from dynamic languages, even if it means some operations need runtime checks.

The hybrid GC approach (reference counting + periodic tracing) is pragmatic. Reference counting handles the common case cheaply, and the tracing pass catches cycles. That's similar to how CPython handles it.

The C registration API sounds clean - explicit pairing of names to function pointers is about as simple as it gets. Do you handle varargs on the Cicada side, or does each registered function have a fixed arity that the interpreter enforces?

briancr 2 days ago

Yes there are lots of runtime checks.. unfortunately, but I always fork the time-consuming calculations into C anyway so those checks don’t really affect overall performance much.

Scripted functions have no set arity, and the same applies to callback C functions. Scripted functions collect their arguments inside an ‘args’ variable. Likewise, each C function has a single ‘argsType’ argument which collects the argument pointers & type info, and there are macros to help unpack them but if you want to do the unpacking manually then the function can be called variadically:

ccInt myCfunction(argsType args)

{ for (int a = 0; a < args.num; a++) printf(“%p\n”, args.p[a]); return 0; }

So all functions are automatically variadic.

It’s good to know that these GC/etc. solutions are even used by the big languages..

Reply View 2 replies
  • newzino a day ago

    The "all functions are automatically variadic" design is a nice simplicity win. No overloading, no arity mismatches at call sites - just a uniform calling convention.

    The argsType struct with pointer array and count is essentially how varargs works at the ABI level in C anyway, you've just made it explicit. And having the type info alongside the pointers means you get runtime type checking without the caller needing to pass format strings or sentinel values like traditional C varargs.

    The tradeoff is you lose static arity checking at parse time, but for an embedded scripting use case that's probably fine - you're validating at runtime anyway and the error messages can be more helpful than "wrong number of arguments."

    Do you have plans for optional/default arguments, or is that outside the scope? With variadic-by-default it'd be natural to just check args.num and use defaults for missing ones.

    Reply View 1 reply
    • briancr a day ago

      Yes and the simplicity extends to function definitions too, since you don’t have to specify any type info. E.g.

      f :: { ; print(args) }

      Brevity is especially nice for inline/anonymous functions.

      You can definitely use args.num, args.type[], and args.indices[] to figure out which optional parameters were passed, but I’ve decided that it’s usually easier to pass a full set of parameters into C and have the scripted wrapper handle the optional params. This is easy in Cicada because of ‘code substitution’ (one of the innovations I’m proudest of and if you’ve seen this elsewhere please let me know!). Example:

      callC :: {

          mandatoryArgs :: { int, int }

    optionalArgs :: { str :: string; str = “default” }

    code

    mandatoryArgs = args

    optionalArgs(), (optionalArgs<<args)()    | set default, then allow user to change it

    $Cfunction(mandatoryArgs, optionalArgs)
      }

      Then you can call it with or without modifying the optional parameters from their default values.

      callC(2, 3) | uses the default string

      callC(2, 3; str = “modified param”)

      callC() runs its arguments as a function, substituted into the params variable, allowing the arguments to modify params. This is weird and I haven’t seen it elsewhere, but it’s very useful.

      Reply View 0 replies