For what it's worth, I ported the sum example to pure python.
def sum(depth, x):
if depth == 0:
return x
else:
fst = sum(depth-1, x*2+0) # adds the fst half
snd = sum(depth-1, x*2+1) # adds the snd half
return fst + snd
print(sum(30, 0))
under pypy3 it executes in 0m4.478s, single threaded. Under python 3.12, it executed in 1m42.148s, again single threaded. I mention that because you include benchmark information:
The bend single-threaded version has been running for 42 minutes on my laptop, is consuming 6GB of memory, and still hasn't finished (12th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-1270P, Ubuntu 24.04). That seems to be an incredibly slow interpreter. Has this been tested or developed on anything other than Macs / aarch64?
I appreciate this is early days, but it's hard to get excited about what seems to be incredibly slow performance from a really simple example you give. If the simple stuff is slow, what does that mean for the complicated stuff?
If I get a chance tonight, I'll re-run it with `-s` argument, see if I get anything helpful.
Running on 42 minutes is mots likely a bug. Yes, we haven't done much testing outside of M3 Max yet. I'm aware it is 2x slower on non-Apple CPUs. We'll work on that.
For the `sum` example, Bend has a huge disadvantage, because it is allocating 2 IC nodes for each numeric operation, while Python is not. This is obviously terribly inefficient. We'll avoid that soon (just like HVM1 did it). It just wasn't implemented in HVM2 yet.
Note most of the work behind Bend went into making the parallel evaluator correct. Running closures and unrestricted recursion on GPUs is extremely hard. We've just finished that part, so, there was basically 0 effort into micro-optimizations. HVM2's codegen is still abysmal. (And I was very clear about it on the docs!)
That said, please try comparing the Bitonic Sort example, where both are doing the same amount of allocations. I think it will give a much fairer idea of how Bend will perform in practice. HVM1 used to be 3x slower than GHC in a single core, which isn't bad. HVM2 should get to that point not far in the future.
Now, I totally acknowledge these "this is still bad but we promise it will get better!!" can be underwhelming, and I understand if you don't believe on my words. But I actually believe that, with the foundation set, these micro optimizations will be the easiest part, and performance will skyrocket from here. In any case, we'll keep working on making it better, and reporting the progress as milestones are reached.
> it is allocating 2 IC nodes for each numeric operation, while Python is not
While that's true, Python would be using big integers (PyLongObject) for most of the computations, meaning every number gets allocated on the heap.
If we use a Python implementation that would avoid this, like PyPy or Cython, the results change significantly:
% cat sum.py
def sum(depth, x):
if depth == 0:
return x
else:
fst = sum(depth-1, x*2+0) # adds the fst half
snd = sum(depth-1, x*2+1) # adds the snd half
return fst + snd
if __name__ == '__main__':
print(sum(30, 0))
% time pypy sum.py
576460751766552576
pypy sum.py 4.26s user 0.06s system 96% cpu 4.464 total
That's on an M2 Pro. I also imagine the result in Bend would not be correct since it only supports 24 bit integers, meaning it'd overflow quite quickly when summing up to 2^30, is that right?
[Edit: just noticed the previous comment had already mentioned pypy]
> I'm aware it is 2x slower on non-Apple CPUs.
Do you know why? As far as I can tell, HVM has no aarch64/Apple-specific code. Could it be because Apple Silicon has wider decode blocks?
> can be underwhelming, and I understand if you don't believe on my words
I don't think anyone wants to rain on your parade, but extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The work you've done in Bend and HVM sounds impressive, but I feel the benchmarks need more evaluation/scrutiny. Since your main competitor would be Mojo and not Python, comparisons to Mojo would be nice as well.
The only claim I made is that it scales linearly with cores. Nothing else!
I'm personally putting a LOT of effort to make our claims as accurate and truthful as possible, in every single place. Documentation, website, demos. I spent hours in meetings to make sure everything is correct. Yet, sometimes it feels that no matter how much effort I put, people will just find ways to misinterpret it.
We published the real benchmarks, checked and double checked. And then you complained some benchmarks are not so good. Which we acknowledged, and provided causes, and how we plan to address them. And then you said the benchmarks need more evaluation? How does that make sense in the context of them being underwhelming?
We're not going to compare to Mojo or other languages, specifically because it generates hate.
Our only claim is:
HVM2 is the first version of our Interaction Combinator evaluator that runs with linear speedup on GPUs. Running closures on GPUs required colossal amount of correctness work, and we're reporting this milestone. Moreover, we finally managed to compile a Python-like language to it. That is all that is being claimed, and nothing else. The codegen is still abysmal and single-core performance is bad - that's our next focus. If anything else was claimed, it wasn't us!
> I spent hours in meetings to make sure everything is correct. Yet, sometimes it feels that no matter how much effort I put, people will just find ways to misinterpret it.
from reply below:
> I apologize if I got defensive, it is just that I put so much effort on being truthful, double-checking, putting disclaimers everywhere about every possible misinterpretation.
I just want to say: don't stop. There will always be some people who don't notice or acknowledge the effort to be precise and truthful. But others will. For me, this attitude elevates the project to something I will be watching.
That's true, you never mentioned Python or alternatives in your README, I guess I got Mandela'ed from the comments in Hacker News, so my bad on that.
People are naturally going to compare the timings and function you cite to what's available to the community right now, though, that's the only way we can picture its performance in real-life tasks.
> Mojo or other languages, specifically because it generates hate
Mojo launched comparing itself to Python and didn't generate much hate, it seems, but I digress
In any case, I hope Bend and HVM can continue to improve even further, it's always nice to see projects like those, specially from another Brazilian
Thanks, and I apologize if I got defensive, it is just that I put so much effort on being truthful, double-checking, putting disclaimers everywhere about every possible misinterpretation. Hell this is behind install instructions:
> our code gen is still on its infancy, and is nowhere as mature as SOTA compilers like GCC and GHC
Yet people still misinterpret. It is frustrating because I don't know what I could've done better
Don't worry about it. Keep at it, this is a very cool project.
FWIW on HN people are inherently going to try to actually use your project and so if it's meant to be (long term) a faster way to run X people evaluate it against that implicit benchmark.
Don't optimize for minimum hate, optimize for actionable feedback and ignore the haters. Easier said than done, though.
Remember you don't need comment trolls on your team, and you'll go insane taking them seriously. Focus on piquing the interest of motivated language nerds. I personally would have really appreciated a "look, were still 10x (or whatever) slower than Python, so now I need all the help I can get working on the codegen, etc." This would have given me quick perspective on why this milestone is meaningful.
Just a note: we are NOT 10x slower than Python. I think a lot of people got the wrong message from this thread. HVM is actually quite fast already. It is just that, on this specific program, Python was doing no allocations, while HVM was allocating a lot.
If you compare programs that do the same allocation, HVM already outperforms not just Python but even compiled languages like Haskell/GHC, due to using all cores. See the Bitonic Sort example. And that's extremely relevant, because real world programs in high-level languages allocate a lot!
I think I made a huge mistake of using a "sum" example on the GUIDE, since it is actually one of the few specific programs where HVM will do poorly today.
I think the (hidden) reasoning is that it is really easy to have speedups with slow interpreters. However, getting speedups in high-performance level programs is quite hard, mainly due to micro-optimisations.
That's where the comparison to Python comes from: getting speedup on slow interpreters is not very _relevant_. Now if your interpreter has the same optimisations as Python (or v8 or JVM), even a small fraction of what you show would be impressive.
Having said this, the work your team did is a really challenging engineering feat (and with lot more potential). But I do not believe the current speedups will hold if the interpreter/compilers have the level of optimisation that exist in other languages. And while you do not claim it, people expect that.
Perhaps consider moving the warning in the NOTE at the bottom of the README.md to a DISCLAIMER section near the top.
I read the whole thing first, then commented, but people often read half of such a document, assume they've got all the important bits, and dive straight in.
(we used to have that problem at $work with new team members and our onboarding doc; I added a section at the bottom that was pure silliness, and then started asking people who claimed to have read it a question that would only make sense if they'd seen the joke ... generally followed by telling them to go back and finish reading and not to try that with me again ;)
Perhaps you can add: "The codegen is still abysmal and single-core performance is bad - that's our next focus." as a disclaimer on the main page/videos/etc. This provides more context about what you claim and also very important what you don't (yet) claim.
> It is very important to reinforce that, while Bend does what it was built to (i.e., scale in performance with cores, up to 10000+ concurrent threads), its single-core performance is still extremely sub-par. This is the first version of the system, and we haven't put much effort into a proper compiler yet. You can expect the raw performance to substantially improve on every release, as we work towards a proper codegen (including a constellation of missing optimizations).
which seems to be pretty much exactly that?
It's at the bottom, though, so I can imagine people just skimming for "how do I get started" missing it, and making it more obvious would almost certainly be a Good Thing.
I still feel like reading the whole (not particularly long) README before commenting being angry about it (not you) is something one could reasonably think the HN commentariat would be capable of (if you want to comment -without- reading the fine article, there's slashdot for that ;), but I'm also the sort of person who reads a whole man page when encountering a new command so perhaps I'm typical minding there.
> I'm personally putting a LOT of effort to make our claims as accurate and truthful as possible, in every single place.
I'm not informed enough to comment on the performance but I really like this attitude of not overselling your product but still claiming that you reached a milestone. That's a fine balance to strike and some people will misunderstand because we just do not assume that much nuance – and especially not truth – from marketing statements.
Identifying what's parallelizable is valuable in the world of language theory, but pure functional languages are as trivial as it gets, so that research isn't exactly ground-breaking.
And you're just not fast enough for anyone doing HPC, where the problem is not identifying what can be parallelized, but figuring out to make the most of the hardware, i.e. the codegen.
This approach is valuable because it abstracts away certain complexities for the user, allowing them to focus on the code itself. I found it especially beneficial for users who are not willing to learn functional languages or parallelize code in imperative languages. HPC specialists might not be the current target audience, and code generation can always be improved over time, and I trust based on the dev comments that it will be.
Naive question: do you expect the linear scaling to hold with those optimisations to single core performance, or would performance diverge from linear there pending further research advancements?
I think you were being absolutely precise, but I want to give a tiny bit of constructive feedback anyway:
In my experience, to not be misunderstood it is more important to understand the state of mind/frame of reference of your audience, than to be utterly precise.
The problem is, if you have been working on something for a while, it is extremely hard to understand how the world looks to someone who has never seen it (1).
The second problem is that when you hit a site like hacker News your audience is impossibly diverse, and there isn't any one state of mind.
When I present research, it always takes many iterations of reflecting on both points to get to a good place.
I've always taken 'Welcome to the Future' as the thing being presented is futuristic and exists now in the present. Not 'in the future we will welcome you to the future' - while that is a nice sentiment it's utterly useless. To point out the obvious - of course futuristic things exist in the future and of course I have to wait for the future to happen.
I think people might interpret something claiming to be the "Future of Parallel Computing" as something that is just waiting on adoption. Perhaps "Towards the Future of Parallel Computing"...
Do you think calling your project parallel is what people have an issue with or do you think it's that you're calling your project the future of parallel computation when it doesn't perform anywhere close to what already exists?
I think the issue is that there is the implicit claim that this is faster than some alternative. Otherwise what's the point?
If you add some disclaimer like "Note: Bend is currently focused on correctness and scaling. On an absolute scale it may still be slower than single threaded Python. We plan to improve the absolute performance soon." then you won't see these comments.
Also this defensive tone does not come off well:
> We published the real benchmarks, checked and double checked. And then you complained some benchmarks are not so good. Which we acknowledged, and provided causes, and how we plan to address them. And then you said the benchmarks need more evaluation? How does that make sense in the context of them being underwhelming?
Right below install instructions, on Bend's README.md:
> But keep in mind our code gen is still on its infancy, and is nowhere as mature as SOTA compilers like GCC and GHC.
Second paragraph of Bend's GUIDE.md:
> While cool, Bend is far from perfect. In absolute terms it is still not so fast. Compared to SOTA compilers like GCC or GHC, our code gen is still embarrassingly bad, and there is a lot to improve. That said, it does what it promises: scaling horizontally with cores.
Limitations session on HVM2's paper:
> While HVM2 achieves near-linear speedup, its compiler is still extremely immature, and not nearly as fast as state-of-art alternatives like GCC of GHC. In single-thread CPU evaluation, HVM2, is still about 5x slower than GHC, and this number can grow to 100x on programs that involve loops and mutable arrays, since HVM2 doesn’t feature these yet.
Yeah exactly. I read most of the readme and watched the demo, but I'm not interested in installing it so I missed this. I would recommend moving this to the first section in its own paragraph.
I understand you might not want to focus on this but it's important information and not a bad thing at all.
Relatedly, the homepage itself doesnt make it obvious it’s still alpha, or not ready, or not actually going to speed up your code this moment - claims like “automatically achieves near-ideal speedup, up to 1000+ threads” - the point is that it parallelizes code, but the word speedup makes it sound like my code will get 1000x faster.
I think you can avoid this kind of criticism by setting expectations better - just plastering a banner at the top saying that it’s in early stage development and not optimized, but that the future is bright, for example. The current headline saying it’s the “parallel future of computation” isn’t really enough to make people understand that the future isn’t here yet.
Same goes for the README, the fact that it’s not production ready per-se really ought to be at the top to set people’s expectations properly IMO, since a lot of people will not read the whole wall of text and just jump straight into trying it out once they’re on your GitHub page.
They’re critical since they are led to have much higher expectations than what actually exists today.
That said, this is a cool project and wish you the best in making it really good!
It is not in alpha, nor not ready. You can use it in production today, if you want to. It is just not fast. That is different. CPython is still 100x slower than C, and is widely deployed in practice.
Seems like these are major problems for software whose whole purpose appears to make parallelizable programs go faster... Maybe I just don't understand the point then. To me it appears like a cool tech demo that fails to achieve the actual goal of delivering performance increases (by better utilizing the hardware), but it sounds like from your reply that being a cool tech demo that is probably not actually practical for truly leveraging your hardware... is the goal? So this is more of a research project than an actual worthwhile tool?
Based on how you've made a nice marketing page and README that sounds like you want people to actually use this tool in practice, within that context correctness is a minimum requirement/table stakes for a language to be usable at all, but that alone doesn't make it "production ready" if it fails to practically achieve anything you'd realistically want to do with it better than old-school languages that people already know how to use.
I am not a Python dev, but it seems that CPython's goal is not to be as fast as C, but just that it is a default runtime for Python [1] and the fact that C is in its name is just an implementation detail. Very different.
So the criticism leveled at the project appears to be valid.
While it is not fast in a single-thread, it is still 5x-7x faster than Node.js today for programs that are allocate a lot. If all you want is to run a program faster, and doesn't mind a bit more energy, Bend could be useful for you today.
And that's comparing a first-version interpreter against a SOTA runtime deployed in all browsers around the world and optimized by all major companies over 20+ years. If that's not useful to you, that's useful to me, which is why I wanted to share so it can be useful to more people.
Bitonic sort runs in 0m2.035s. Transpiled to c and compiled it takes 0m0.425s.
that sum example, transpiled to C and compiled takes 1m12.704s, so it looks like it's just the VM case that is having serious issues of some description!
I have no dog in this fight, but feel compelled to defend the authors here. Recursion does not test compute, rather it tests the compiler's/interpreter's efficiency at standing up and tearing down the call stack.
Clearly this language is positioned at using the gpu for compute-heavy applications and it's still in its early stages. Recursion is not the target application and should not be a relevant benchmark.
Okay, no. I know I called out performance in my post, but that was just from my observations. It surprised me to see something be that much slower than pure python. If you show me a near-python code example in a new language, as someone who mostly writes python code, I'm going to go and write it in python and see how it compares performance wise.
The authors never made any kind of false claims at all. You're reading a lot in to both their README and my post.
They've updated the README for a bit of clarity, but even re-reading the README as it was when I looked this morning (and even a few from before) it hasn't claimed to be fast. The claims are all related to the features that it does have, around parallelisation.
You're missing some context, it's not bitonic sort itself that would present an issue with GPUs, it's the "with immutable tree rotations" part, which in a naive implementation would imply some kind of memory management that would have trouble scaling to thousands of cores.
Yes and those benchmarks are real. Showing linear speed up in the number cores when writing standard code is a real achievement. If you assumed that somehow means this is a state of the art compiler with super blazing performance is on no one but you. The readme lays it out very clearly.
the irony in you blasting all over this thread is that you dont know how it even works. You have 0 idea if their claims of scaling linearly are causing bottlenecks in other places as you state, if you read actual docs on this its clear that the actaul "compiler" part of the compiler was put on the backburner while the parallellization was figured out and as that is now done a bunch of optimizations will come in the next year
"Thread" term in GPUs and CPUs mean different things, it's more like a SIMD lane in GPUs. A bit like ISPC can compile your code so there's eg 32 invocations of your function per CPU thread running on the same time (if you're using 16-bit datums on AVX512), and you could have 2048 executions going on after multiplying up 32 cores * 2 SMT threads/core * 32 compiler executions.
Yes, but when looking at the source it's more obvious this is a repeating pattern.
"Hey, I'm accessing the 0th element here, just want to make that clear"
Without the +0, that statement looks disconnected from the +1 even though conceptually its the same.
Say somebody adds some special marker/tombstone/whatever into element 0 and now all those additions need to be bumped up by one. Someone else may go and see the +1, +2, +3 and just change them to +2, +3 +4, etc while completely missing the lone variable by itself as its visually dissimilar.
Ive usually seen it used in longer lists of statements. It also keeps everything lined up formatting wise.
A lot of negativity in these threads. I say ~cudas~ kudos to the author for getting this far! The only similar project I'm aware of is Futhark, and that's haskell-y syntax - great for some people, but to the general class of C/C++/Python/Js/Java/etc. devs pretty arcane and hard to work with. My biggest complaint with this is, unlike Futhark, it only targets Cuda or multi-core. Futhark which can target OpenCL, Cuda, ISPC, HIP, sigle core CPU, or multi core CPU. The performance problems others are pointing out I'm certain can be tackled.
OP comes around with some of the coolest things posted in HN recently, and all he gets is extensive criticism, when it is clear that this is an early version :/
I think HN is a community where people want to post something novel or new. When someone wants to post a kudos, most likely they'll upvote someone else instead of posting yet another "awesome job" (even if it is certainly warranted). Criticism instead can be endlessly diverse since there's usually only limited number ways to get it right, but plenty to get wrong.
In the end, HN comments fall prey to this truth and you see a handful of positive comments, with the majority being criticisms or "I wish this did X". No one person is to blame. Its just the culture of technologists today.
I would be pretty appreciated if people criticize my project. That is how you grow. If people tend hide cruel truth behind applause, the world would just crumbled.
OP is claiming amazing results, people are poking obvious holes that good single core implementations completely rip the scalability claims to shreds. Near linear scalability is not impressive if—even at the highest throughput—the computation pales by comparison to Rust on a single core.
I do not see how the comparison to the iPhone here stands.
What you appreciate has little to do with whether we should assume others are thick-skinned. If someone has always been knocked down they will struggle to positively accept criticism regardless of how well meant it might be.
I really think I take criticism well... The problem is that people were criticizing us for not doing things that were literally done on the second paragraph. So at this point it didn't feel like productive criticism? That's like being criticized for being naked when you're full clothed. How do you even make sense of that...
People are more childish than they like to believe. It's a mix of jealousy and ignorant skepticism. What you're doing is incredibly interesting I look forward to seeing it develop!
It has 905 upvotes, it has received a fair share of positivity as well. Even criticism is often positive, since it expresses interest and engagement with the ideas and approach.
Not criticizing new projects is a good social norm, because starting new and ambitious projects is good and should not be discouraged. However, criticizing projects that make misleading, unsubstantiated or false claims is also a good social norm, because it discourages people from making misleading, unsubstantiated or false claims.
We're a bit off-topic, but there's no requirement that your account be associated with your identity, especially when the op is pretty clearly involved with the project (as opposed to if they were claiming not to be or something).
I have no idea what you're trying to convey, but I'm Victor Taelin. Also very cool comment on that thread, hypothesizing on whether we'd be able to ever run it on GPUs. We did it! That is what we're announcing today.
I just wanted to comment on how good the homepage is - it's immediately clear what you do. Most people working with "combinators" would feel a need to use lots of scary lingo, but OP actually shows the simple idea behind the tool (this is the opposite take of most academics, who instead show every last detail and never tell you what's going on). I really appreciate it - we need more of this.
Look, I understand the value proposition and how cool it is from a theoretical standpoint, but I honestly don't think this will ever become relevant.
Here are some notes from my first impressions and after skimming through the paper. And yes, I am aware that this is very very early software.
1. Bend looks like an extremely limited DSL. No FFI. No way of interacting with raw buffers. Weird 24bit floating point format.
2. There's a reason why ICs are not relevant: performance is and will always be terrible. There is no other way to put it, graph traversal simply doesn't map well on hardware.
3. The premise of optimal reduction is valid. However, you still need to write the kernels in a way that can be parallelized (ie. no data dependencies, use of recursion).
4. There are no serious examples that directly compare Bend/HVM code with it's equivalent OMP/CUDA program. How am I suppose to evaluate the reduction in implementation complexity and what to expect on performance. So many claims, so little actual comparisons.
5. In the real world of high performance parallel computing, tree-like structures are non-existent. Arrays are king. And that's because of the physical nature of how memory works on a hardware level. And do you know what works best on mutable contiguous memory buffers ? Loops. We'll see when HVM will implement this.
In the end, what we currently have is half-baked language that is (almost) fully isolated from external data, extremely slow, a massive abstraction on the underlying hardware (unutilised features: multilevel caches, tensor cores, simd, atomics).
I apologize if this comes out as harsh, I still find the technical implementation and the theoretical background to be very interesting. I'm simply not (yet) convinced of its usefulness in the real world.
We do use multi-level caching, and you can achieve 5x higher performance by using it correctly. FFI is already implemented, just not published, because we want to release it with graphics rendering, which I think will be really cool. Haskell/GHC uses a graph and trees too, and nobody would say it is not practical of useful. And while it is true that arrays are king, there are many SOTA algorithms that are implemented in Haskell (including compilers, type-checkers, solvers) because they do not map well to arrays at all.
The main reason ICs are not fast is that nobody ever has done low-level optimization work over it. All previous implementations were terribly inefficient. And my own work is too, because I spent all time so far trying to get it to run *correctly* on GPUs, which was very hard. As you said yourself, there aren't even loops yet. So, how can we solve that? By adding the damn loops! Or do you think there is some inherent limitation preventing us to do that? If you do, you'll be surprised.
HVM2 is finally a correct algorithm that scales. Now we'll optimize it for the actual low-level performance.
> HVM2 is finally a correct algorithm that scales.
This, I think, is the key thing people are missing.
Maybe your low level performance will never be as good as hoped, but for this sort of task, "the parallelisation part works and produces correct results" might not be sufficient but is absolutely necessary, and any optimisation work done before that has such a high probability of having to be thrown away that under similar circumstances I wouldn't bother in advance either.
Re: 5, trees are fairly widely used (though not as most CS people would implement them) with Morton or H index ordering in things like the Fast Multipole and Barnes Hut algorithms which reduce O(n^2) pair wise ops to O(n) and O(n log n) respectively. BH more common in Astro, FMM in chemical molecular dynamics.
Ten years ago, I took a course on parallel algorithms (15-210 at CMU). It pitched parallelism as the future of computing as Moore's law would hit inevitable limits. I was sold and I was excited to experiment with it. Unfortunately, there weren't many options for general parallel programming. Even the language we used for class (SML) wasn't parallel (there was a section at the end about using extensions and CUDA but it was limited from what I recall).
Since then, I was able to make some experiments with multithreading (thanks Rust) and getting very creative with shaders (thanks Shadertoy). But a general parallel language on the GPU? I'm super excited to play with this!
Nowadays 210 is actually parallel! You can run 210-style code using MaPLe (https://github.com/MPLLang/mpl) and get competitive performance with respect to C/C++.
If you liked 210, you might also like https://futhark-lang.org/ which is an ML-family language that compiles to GPU with good performance.
Very cool idea - but unless I'm missing something, this seems very slow.
I just wrote a simple loop in C++ to sum up 0 to 2^30. With a single thread without any optimizations it runs in 1.7s on my laptop -- matching Bend's performance on an RTX 4090! With -O3 it vectorizes the loop to run in less than 80ms.
#include <iostream>
int main() {
int sum = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1024*1024*1024; i++) {
sum += i;
}
std::cout << sum << "\n";
return 0;
}
Bend has no tail-call optimization yet. It is allocating a 1-billion long stack, while C is just looping. If you compare against a C program that does actual allocations, Bend will most likely be faster with a few threads.
Bend's codegen is still abysmal, but these are all low-hanging fruits. Most of the work went into making the parallel evaluator correct (which is extremely hard!). I know that sounds "trust me", but the single-thread performance will get much better once we start compiling procedures, generating loops, etc. It just hasn't been done.
(I wonder if I should have waited a little bit more before actually posting it)
> (I wonder if I should have waited a little bit more before actually posting it)
No. You built something that’s pretty cool. It’s not done yet, but you’ve accomplished a lot! I’m glad you posted it. Thank you. Ignore the noise and keep cooking!
Computer science traditionally focuses on algorithms. Divide-and-conquer algorithms are frequently much more clearly expressed as recursion. Quicksort is the classic example, also various tree operations.
I've never understood the fascination with programming languages among computer science folks. Just write machine code directly, it's what it compiles to anyway.
If they’re low-hanging fruit, why not do that before posting about it publicly? All that happens is that you push yourself into a nasty situation: people get a poor first impression of the system and are less likely to trust you the second time around, and in the (possibly unlikely) event that the problems turn out to be harder than you expect, you wind up in the really nasty situation of having to deal with failed expectations and pressure to fix them quickly.
I agree with you. But then there's the entire "release fast, don't wait before it is perfect". And, then, there's the case that people using it will guide us to iteratively building what is needed. I'm still trying to find that balance, it isn't so easy. This release comes right after we finally managed to compile it to GPUs, which is a huge milestone people could care about - but there are almost no micro-optimizations.
Dude we're running unrestricted recursion and closures on GPUs! If that's not cool to you, I apologize, but that mind-blowingly cool to me, and I wanted to share it, even though the codegen is still initial. Hell I was actually going to publish it with the interpreters only, but I still coded an initial compiler because I thought people would like to see where it could go :(
The closure part was when I had to stop for a moment and go "wait, really?! ... COOL!" and I'm definitely going to try and remember to check back every so often (emphasis on 'try' given I have a brain like a sieve but still ;).
This is very cool and it's being treated unfairly, though it's also obviously not ready for prime time; it's an existence proof.
To illustrate that, many people on here have been losing their mind over Kolomogorov-Arnold Networks, which are almost identically positioned; interesting idea, kind of cool, does what the paper claims, potentially useful in the future, definitely not any use at all for any real use-case right now.
(In part that's probably because the average understanding of ML here is _not_ strong, so there's more deference and credulousness around those claims.)
You might want to double check with objdump if the loop is actually vectorized, or if the compiler just optimizes it out. Your loop actually performs signed integer overflow, which is UB in C++; the compiler could legally output anything. If you want to avoid the UB, declare sum as unsigned (unsigned integer overflow is well-defined); the optimization will still happen but at least you’ll be guaranteed that it’ll be correct.
Exactly, this kind of thing always happens with these loops, which is why I think programs that allocate are fairer. But then people point out that the C allocator is terrible, so we can't make that point :')
Might be worth seeing if e.g. jemalloc is enough less terrible for the sort of examples you're looking at to help with that.
(though note that I mention jemalloc because I've had "huh, this C code now magically runs faster" experiences with it, make no claim it's the right one to look at, and am very sure that I don't know what I'm talking about sufficiently wrt allocators to be able to recognise the right one if it bit me on the leg)
I want to congratulate the author on this, it's super cool. Making correct automatic parallelization is nothing to sneeze at, and something you should absolutely be proud of.
Why so much negativity? An angry crowd sounded more like bots trying to test OP's intelligence by exploiting the ReadMe file imperfections while trying to change the context and intent of the post. It's so ignorant and brutal. They spent hours arguing without taking 2 minutes to properly read the ReadMe file.OP is a one man's show and now they all want to piss on OP. Keep going OP!
Fala Taelin, nice work! Does HVM2 compile interaction nets to e.g. spirv, or is this an interpreter (like the original HVM) that happens to run on the GPU?
I ask because a while back I was messing around with compiling interaction nets to C after reducing as much of the program as possible (without reducing the inputs), as a form of whole program optimization. Wouldn't be too much harder to target a shader language.
Edit: Oh I see...
> This repository provides a low-level IR language for specifying the HVM2 nets, and a compiler from that language to C and CUDA
HVM
I was talking about traversing an interaction net to recover a lambda-calculus-like term, which can be lowered to C a la lisp in small pieces with minimal runtime overhead.
Honestly the motivation is, you are unlikely to outperform a hand-written GPU kernel for like ML workloads using Bend. In theory, HVM could act as glue, stitching together and parallelizing the dispatch order of compute kernels, but you need a good FFI to do that. Interaction nets are hard to translate across FFI boundaries. But, if you compile nets to C, keeping track of FFI compute kernel nodes embedded in the interaction network, you can recover a sensible FFI with no translation overhead.
The other option is implementing HVM in hardware, which I've been messing around with on a spare FPGA.
It is an interpreter that runs on GPUs, and a compiler to native C and CUDA. We don't target SPIR-V directly, but aim to. Sadly, while the C compiler results in the expected speedups (3x-4x, and much more soon), the CUDA runtime didn't achieve substantial speedups, compared to the non-compiled version. I believe this is due to warp-divergence: with non-compiled procedures, we can actually merge all function calls into a single "generic" interpreted function expander that can be reduced by warp threads without divergence. We'll be researching this more extensively looking forward.
Oh that's cool! Interested to see where your research leads. Could you drop me a link to where the interaction net → cuda compiler resides? I skimmed through the HVM2 repo and just read the .cu runtime file.
Edit: nvm, I read through the rest of the codebase. I see that HVM compiles the inet to a large static term and then links against the runtime.
This is incredible. This is the kind of work we need to crack open the under utilized GPUs out there. I know LLMs are all the rage, but there's more gold in them hills.
Except... it's not. Coming from a Haskell background and following the author since the early days, I think his work is excellent w.r.t Interaction Combinators and Nets. However, to do LLM work you need to cooperate with the chip, which means doing things in the manner most expeditious to the intricacies of Computer Architecture. That's not what this does. I don't see how Bend would modify its runtime to take advantage of all the things that modern GPU-based BLAS implementations do (which is what I currently do), but would love to be surprised.
As a whole, the speedups claimed are not actually that great. Going from 1 core to 16k cores increases performance by 50x. That's not actually very good.
Like, I really truly love what the author has contributed to functional languages and Interaction Nets. He has good ideas, but while it's cool that this can be done, things like LLMs require very practical tuning.
Finally, the author has a history of making fantastical claims. Again, it's true there is a speedup, but in my view, this is like making an extremely slow language and then optimizing it and then announcing that you've figure out how to improve your language's performance by 50x. While true, it neglects the fact it was very slow to begin with.
It is "only" 50x because a single GPU core is 100x weaker than a CPU core!
Within CUDA cores, it is actually a linear speedup! It does 2k MIPS with 1 CUDA core, and ~28000 MIPS with 16k CUDA cores. If we double the performance of single-core GPU evaluation, we almost double the performance with 16k cores!
> That's a 111x speedup by doing nothing. No thread spawning, no explicit management of locks, mutexes. We just asked bend to run our program on RTX, and it did. Simple as that. Note that, for now, Bend only supports 24-bit machine ints (u24), thus, results are always mod 2^24.
Ahh, not even 32bit? Hmm, that seems pretty arbitrary for someone not accustomed to gpu's and wanting to solve some problems requiring 64 bits (gravitational simulation of solar system at millimeter resolution could use ~58bit ints for position).
This is nice, and obvious. I've waited about 20 years since I learned MATLAB and GNU Octave for someone to make a graph solver like this. And about 25 years since I first had the idea, when I was learning VLSI with VHDL in college and didn't see anything like the functional programming of circuits in what at the time was the imperative C++ world. The closest thing then was Lisp, but nobody talked about how the graph representation (intermediate code or i-code in the imperative world) could be solved in an auto-parallelized way.
We still see this today in how languages go out of their way to implement higher order method libraries (map/reduce/filter) but then under the hood there is no multithreading, they just expect the developer to annotate their loops to be parallel because the languages aren't formal enough to know about side effects in the innermost logic, and don't support immutability or performant pass-by-value semantics with copy-on-write anyway. So we end up with handwavy languages like Rust that put all of that mental load onto the developer for basically no gain, they just save memory by performing computation in-place imperatively.
I also like how Bend sidesteps the nonexistence of highly scaled symmetric multiprocessing CPUs by supporting GPUs. It makes the argument moot that GPUs can't be stopped because they're too big to fail. Julia is the only other language I've seen that tries this. I wish Clojure did, although it's been a long time since I followed it so maybe it has some parallelism?
I would have dearly loved to work on something like Bend, had someone solved the funding issue. Nobody wants to pay for pure research, and nobody sees the need for languages that do what everyone else is doing except easier. We have Kickstarter for widgets and Patreon for influencers, but makers have to bootstrap themselves or learn everything about finance or live in the right city or have a large network to hopefully meet an angel investor or work in academia and lose all rights to what they invent while spending the majority of their time hustling for grants anyway. So it just never happens and we're stuck with the same old busted techniques. Like how Hollywood only has money for sequels and reboots or the recording industry only has money for canned corporate music and hits from already famous artists and yet another cover that yanks the original better song off the radio.
A quarter of a century can go by in the blink of an eye if you get suckered into building other people's dreams as a people-pleaser. Be careful what you work on.
> A quarter of a century can go by in the blink of an eye if you get suckered into building other people's dreams as a people-pleaser. Be careful what you work on
well said! i find myself reflecting the same sentiment when away from the computer (and i've avoided the people-pleaser thing, but what you said resonates as i watch the world)
Is the recursive sum the best function to show multi-threading or GPU speedups? Seems unlikely. FWIW, i ported the python example to Julia and it ran in about 2.5 seconds the same as the C++ version. Pure python 3.12 took 183 seconds.
function sum(depth, x)
if depth == 0
return x
else
fst = sum(depth-1, x*2+0)
snd = sum(depth-1, x*2+1)
end
return fst + snd
end
This is really, really cool. This makes me think, "I could probably write a high performance GPU program fairly easily"...a sentence that's never formed in my head.
> Bending is the opposite of folding. Whatever fold consumes, bend creates.
But in everyday language bending is not the opposite of folding, they are more or less the same thing. Why not "unfold", which also has a connotation of "the process of happening" as well as merely the opposite of folding?
I have a question about the example code and output for bending:
type Tree:
Node { ~lft, ~rgt }
Leaf { val }
def main():
bend x = 0:
when x < 3:
tree = Tree/Node { lft: fork(x + 1), rgt: fork(x + 1) }
else:
tree = Tree/Leaf { val: 7 }
return tree
tree = fork(0)
tree = ![fork(1), fork(1)]
tree = ![![fork(2),fork(2)], ![fork(2),fork(2)]]
tree = ![![![fork(3),fork(3)], ![fork(3),fork(3)]], ![![fork(3),fork(3)], ![fork(3),fork(3)]]]
tree = ![![![7,7], ![7,7]], ![![7,7], ![7,7]]]
Where does the initial "tree = fork(0)" come from?
`bend` is a convenience syntax that "just creates an in-place recursive function, immediately calls it with an initial state, and then assigns the end result to a local variable" ... "in a single statement, rather than needing to name a separate external auxilliary function that you'll only use once", according to the original author on Twitter:
https://x.com/VictorTaelin/status/1791964640533958924 and
https://x.com/VictorTaelin/status/1791996185449791932
But contrary to this, I think explicitly separating function declaration and function calling, in the following kind of syntax, would make it much clearer and less complected where the initial condition `tree = fork(0)` comes from. In the original example it came from `bend x = 0`, but here the function declaration is separate and the call more explicit: so it more obviously comes from `createTree(0)`:
type Tree
Branch { left, right }
Leaf { value }
def main():
createTree(x):
x < 3 ?
Tree.Branch { left: createTree(x+1), right: createTree(x+1) }
Tree.Leaf { value: 7 }
createTree(0)
Besides not needing a local variable `tree` here, the unique thing here is the elimination of the else-clause, to reduce unnecessary nesting, and a rule that the language just early returns the last result of any nested condition. If it doesn't go into any nested condition, then it just returns the last result in the main function body (like Ruby). Without any `return` keywords needed in either case. Wouldn't this be quite beautiful?
Re: name. Fold and bend are indeed called fold and unfold in Haskell and traditional functional programming literature.
I wonder if bend has to do with how we manipulate the computation's interaction graph while evaluating a bend. There might be some bending of wires!
Re: code example
In the code example, x=0 is the seed value. tree = fork(0) must mean "fork off to evaluate the bend at the seed value". In that first fork, we fork twice with the value x=1, to get the left and right subtrees of the top level node. We then fork four instances of x=2, eight instances of x = 3, and finally get our balanced binary tree with eight 7s.
Note this is guesswork. I don't know what the ![a, b] syntax means, and I haven't read much of the guide.
Appendix: Notes on Fold Vs Bend
I wrote these for an earlier draft while reminding myself about these operations. I include them more for my benefit, and in case they help you or the audience.
Fold and bend are categorical duals, aka catamorphisms and anamorphisms. One takes a monadic value and reduces it into an ordinary value. The other takes an ordinary value and expands it into a comonadic value.
Fold starts with a value in an inductive data type, and then replaces its constructors with a function. For example it takes a list (1:2):3, and replaces the constructor : with the function `+`, to get (1+2)+3 = 6
Bend starts with a seed value and a function taking values into constructor expressions for a conductive data type. It then grows the seed into a potentially infinite AST. For example the seed value 1 and the function f(x:xs) = (x+1) : (x:xs) gives us the infinite lazy list [1, 2, 3, ...]
The question that comes to me is: can I use fork(x) outside of a bend?
Seems like probably not, there doesn't seem to be enough information in the 'argument' to this 'function' to do anything useful without the implicit context of the bend construct.
For that reason I think I'd prefer it if fork was a keyword (like 'bend' and 'when') rather than a 'function', just at the surface syntax level to give a clue it is something special.
I guess fork is a kind of 'magic' function that represents the body of the bend. It's a bit like a 'self' or 'this'.
At the moment this syntax is in a weird half-way point ...the underlying concept is necessarily functional but it's trying to look kind of like an imperative for-loop still.
I wonder if we couldn't just explicitly create a 'bendable' recursive function that can be 'bent' by calling it. But I guess it's like this because it needs to be tightly constrained by the 'when' and 'else' forms.
TBH the more I look at this example the more confusing it is. The other part I wonder about is the assigning of new values to tree var... can I set other local vars from outside the bend scope? I don't think so, I guess it'd be a syntax error if the var names assigned in the 'when' and 'else' clauses didn't match?
Again it's sort of overloading an imperative-looking syntax to implicitly do the 'return' from the implicit recursive function.
Later on there is this example:
def render(depth, shader):
bend d = 0, i = 0:
when d < depth:
color = (fork(d+1, i*2+0), fork(d+1, i*2+1))
else:
width = depth / 2
color = shader(i % width, i / width)
return color
And here I wonder - does 'width' have a value after the bend? Or it's only the last assignment in each clause that is privileged?
That's an odd mix in a language which otherwise has explicit returns like Python.
If so I wonder if a syntax something like this might be clearer:
def render(depth, shader):
bend color with d = 0, i = 0:
when d < depth:
yield (fork(d+1, i*2+0), fork(d+1, i*2+1))
else:
width = depth / 2
return shader(i % width, i / width)
return color
i.e. name the return var once in the bend itself, yield intermediate values (to itself, recursively) and return the final state.
The first `fork` is from using bend and passing the initial state
The program above will initialize a state (`x = 0`), and then, for as long as `x < 3`,
it will "fork" that state in two, creating a `Tree/Node`, and continuing with `x + 1`.
When `x >= 3`, it will halt and return a `Tree/Leaf` with `7`.
When all is done, the result will be assigned to the `tree` variable:
I've made a benchmark of Bend running a simple counter program on CPU vs GPU, vs Haskell,Node,Python,C that I plan to write a blogpost about, probably this Sunday:
Congrats on the HVM2 launch! Been following for a while, excited to see where this project goes. For others who are lost on the interaction net stuff, there was a neat show hn that gave a more hands-on interactive intro: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=37406742 (the 'Get Started' writeup was really helpful)
This is very exciting. I don’t have any GPU background, but I have been worrying a lot about CUDA cementating itself in the ecosystem. Here devs don’t need CUDA directly which would help decoupling the ecosystem from cynical mega corps, always good! Anyway enough politics..
Tried to see what the language is like beyond hello world and found the guide[1]. It looks like a Python and quacks like a Haskell? For instance, variables are immutable, and tree-like divide and conquer data structures/algorithms are promoted for getting good results. That makes sense I guess! I’m not surprised to see a functional core, but I’m surprised to see the pythonic frontend, not that it matters much. I must say I highly doubt that it will make it much easier for Python devs to learn Bend though, although I don’t know if that’s the goal.
What are some challenges in programming with these kind of restrictions in practice? Also, is there good FFI options?
We have a replacement for CUDA, it is called C++17 parallel algorithms. It has vendor support for running on the GPU by Intel, AMD and NVIDIA and will also run on all your cores on the CPU. It uses the GPU vendors compiler to convert your C++ to something that can natively run on the GPU. With unified memory support, it becomes very fast to run computations on heap allocated memory using the GPU, but implementations also support non-unified memory
Bending is an operation similar to folding, both in real life and in the language.
While fold is recursive on data, bend is recursive on a boolean condition (like a pure while that supports multiple branching recursion points).
I was actually looking forward to seeing someone from Bend to make a comment like this
They never took off because we discovered, to our surprise to some extent, that gradient descent through back propagation works better than expected if you give it the right learning media and the right input and output encodings. It took a ton of fiddling ("graduate student descent") to figure those out.
Back then everyone thought it was doomed to get stuck at local minima, but it turns out that has a lower probability of happening if the search space has enough dimensions. It works well enough to make the sand talk back to us and now that particular design has sucked all the air out of the room.
Nobody has tried EC at anywhere near the scale of GPTs/LLMs because that amount of compute is expensive and at this point we know those will at least work.
I still think EC is fascinating and would love to play with it some more at some point, maybe trying it combined with back propagation in novel ways. Compute only gets cheaper.
I have no interest in this tech as it's apparently for backend stuff and not actually rendering things by itself.
But the demo gif is probably the best I have seen in a Github readme. I watched it till the end. It was instantly engaging. I wanted to see the whole story unfold.
> That's a 111x speedup by doing nothing. No thread spawning, no explicit management of locks, mutexes. We just asked bend to run our program on RTX, and it did. Simple as that. Note that, for now, Bend only supports 24-bit machine ints (u24), thus, results are always mod 2^24.
Ahh, not even 32bit? Hmm, that seems pretty arbitrary for someone not accustomed to gpu's and wanting to solve some problems requiring 64 bits (gravitational simulation of solar system at millimeter resolution could use ~58bit ints for position).
Being able to compile to different hardware including GPUs and TPUs seems to be one of the core goals of Mojo based off what Chris Lattner was saying in his Lex Friendman interview. It doesn't seem to come up much on Modular website though, so I can see why you would think that.
I know the docs say this will be fixed soon, but what is the main reason for restricting number types to 24 bits? I saw in the code that they are wrapper around the 32-bit system number types, so what prevents Bend from changing them to U32(u32) right now?
Seriously though. Implementing a full high-level lang in parallel is HARD, so, to simplify it greatly, we made IC nodes 64-bit, which allows us to use native 64-bit atomic operations in many parts of the implementation. Since each 64-bit node has 2 ports, that gives us 32 bits per port. And since we use 3 bits for the tag, that leaves us with 29 bit payloads. We used that space to easily implement unboxed numbers (f24, u24, i24).
That said, we will have (boxed) 64-bit numbers soon! With this foundation in place, adding them is a matter of coding. I just want to have some time to let people use the limited version, find bugs, etc., before I add more stuff.
I think I have a use for this but I’m realizing that I don’t know how to build a mental model of what is going to parallelize in this system. Surely some algorithms are better and getting chopped up than others - how can I tell what is going on?
I think this is an unsolved tooling question right now.
You could get some sense of the parallelism by using `/usr/bin/time` and dividing the wall time with the user time.
You could look at the Task Manager / Activity Monitor / htop and see if it's using 800% CPU or whatever.
You could use psrecord (https://pypi.org/project/psrecord/) to get a relatively finegrained CPU+mem usage graph across the duration of the program.
But it would probably still be best to record some sort of stats in the Bend/HVM itself, enabled via a CLI flag. Reductions per ms, sampled across the program duration, or something like that.
I'd be interested in anybody's ideas of what a good metric would be here!
This looks cool, I find myself wishing for a language and introductory tutorial that isn't so targeted at Python programmes however (though I understand from a commercial point of view why that may make sense).
It seems like this is actually an elegant typed functional language but the Python syntax looks ugly and verbose and like it's trying to hide that compared to something more ML/F# or Haskell inspired.
I'll try and get past that though as it does look like there's something pretty interesting here.
> Everything that can run in parallel, will run in parallel.
On the CPU, there's typically a threshold where dividing and coordinating the parallel work takes more time than simply doing the work on a single thread. Thus you can make the overall runtime much faster by not dividing the work all the way, but rather stop at that optimal threshold and then just loop over the remaining work in the worker threads.
How does this work on the GPU using Bend? Been too long since I did any GPU programming.
* ... Strong scaling, especially comparing to a modern sequential baseline, seems to be where folks are noting the author still has some work to do wrt getting to ideal speedups for what performance people care about
* There are parallel models of computation like PRAM for describing asymptomatically idealized speedups of trickier aspects of parallel code like heap usage . Bend currently seems to do a lot of stack allocations that someone writing in most parallel systems wouldn't, and the asymptomatic slowdowns would show up in these models, eg, asymptotically many unnecessary heap/stack data movements. There are a lot of these models, which are useful for being precise when making ideal speedups claims. NUMA, network topology, etc. ("Assume everyone is a sphere and...")
2. The comparisons I'd really like to see are:
* cudf, heavy.ai: how does it compare to high-level python dataframe and SQL that already run in GPUs? How is perf, and what programs do you want people to be able to write and they cannot?
* Halide and other more general purpose languages that compile to GPUs that seem closer to where Bend is going
FWIW, it's totally fine to compare to other languages.
Instead of showing it is beating everywhere, or saying ideal speedups and no comparisons, show where it is strong vs weak compared to others and diff tasks, especially progression across different releases (bend1 vs 2 vs ...), and let folks decide. There is some subset of tasks you already care about, so separate those out and show the quality you get in them, so people know what it looks like when you care + happy path. The rest becomes 'if you need these others, stay clear for now, check in again later as we know and are tracking.' Being clear that wall clock time can be slow and performance per watt can be wasteful is OK, you are looking for early adopters, not OpenAI core engineers.
I believe the single-core version was running slower due to the memory getting full. The benchmark was adding 2^30 numbers, but HVM2 32-bit has a limit of 2^29 nodes. I've re-ran it with 2^28 instead, and the numbers are `33.39 seconds` (1 core) vs `2.94 seconds` (16 cores). You can replicate the benchmark in an Apple M3 Max. I apologize for the mistake.
Speaking of parallel computing, any book or series of books that can help an engineer learn parallel program and go from zero to hero? Ideally the books will cover both intuition, in-depth details, and theories. Something like The Art of Multiprocessor Programming by Herlihy et el for concurrent programming, even though the book arguably still has too steep of a learning curve.
Congratulations on the launch and hard work so far! We need projects like this. Great readme and demo as well.
Every time I try to write shaders, or even peek through my fingers at CUDA C(++) code, I recoil in disbelief that we don't have high level programming yet on the GPU. I can't wait until we do. The more great projects attacking it the better in my book.
This is some very cool project!
I sometime dream about a instruction set architecture (ISA) that runs in some kind of VM that allows for existing languages to be able to run on CPU/GPU/FPGAs/ASICs automatically.
I think this is a much more practically approach and i hope this will give some inspiration to this possibility.
This is unproven (and not a toy problem), but I imagine it's going to do pretty well at compilers. The amount of time I'm waiting at work, hypnotizing the tsc process that sits at 100% CPU, wishing it was parallel...
They're probably hitting ctrl+c at the end of the lines they don't want to run, that's telling the terminal "cancel that" but it'll usually just go to the next line and leave what you typed in place, like in this video.
Question:
Does this take into account memory bandwidth and caches between cores? Because getting them wrong can easily make parallel programs slower than sequential ones.
the single-thread case ran a little slower than it should on this live demo due to a mistake on my part: `run` redirected to the Rust interpreter, rather than the C interpreter. the Rust one is a little bit slower. the numbers on the site and on all docs are correct though, and the actual speedup is ~12x, not ~16x.
I thought you was talking about the DEMO example, which ran ~30% slower than expected. Instead, you were talking about the README, which was actually incorrect. I noticed the error and edited it. I explained the issue in another comment.
Yes, Kind2 will be a type layer on top of Bend, with a similar relationship as in JavaScript / TypeScript (but much more integrated, less ad-hoc and with proofs!). I don't want Kind2 to compete directly with Lean though, as it is doing an amazing job and I'm rooting for it. So, Kind2 will be just a type system for Bend that happens to let you prove theorems about your programs, rather than a higher promise to digitalize all of maths and stuff.
Erlang-like actor models would be well suited, so yeah, you could use it for web servers (assuming they are able to finish the language). It's a general purpose high level programming language.
I for one found the 'how is this possible' video near the bottom of the page to be unhelpful:
- surely for `3 x 3 = 9`, there is some concept of primitive operations?
- I get that replacement of patterns in a graph can be done in parallel, but (a) identifying when a rewrite rule should apply and (b) communicating the state of the updated graph to worker threads and (c) organizing worker threads to agree on which does each task all take some effort. When is this more work than the original computation (as in the 3x3 example)?
24bit integers and floats, no array datatype, and a maximum 4GB heap of nodes are very harse restrictions, especially for any workloads that would actually want to be running on a GPU. The limitations in the HVM2 whitepaper about unsound evaluation around closures and infinite loops because it is evaluating both sides of a conditional without any short circuiting are also extremely concerning.
Before you reply "these are things we can address in the future": that doesn't matter. Everyone can address everything in the future. They are currently hard technical barriers to it's use, with no way of knowing the level of effort that will require or the knock-on effects, especially since some of these issues have been "we can fix that later" for ten years.
I also highly recommend changing your benchmark numbers from "interactions per second" to a standard measurement like FLOPS. No one else on earth knows how many of those interactions are pure overhead from your evaluation semantics, and not doing useful work. They come across as attempting to wow an audience with high numbers and not communicating an apples to apples comparison with other languages.
So use a metric that makes absolutely no sense on given domain, instead of one that is completely correct, sensible, accurate, stablished on the literature, and vastly superior in context? What even is a FLOPS in the context of Interaction Net evaluation? These things aren't even interchangeable.
The fact that you don’t know the answer to this question, and don’t even seem to think it is relevant, is chilling.
People want to be able to ground your work—which you are claiming is the “parallel future of computation”—in something familiar. Insulting them and telling them their concerns are irrelevant just isn’t going to work.
I would urge you to think about what a standard comparison versus Haskell would look like. Presumably it would be something that dealt with a large state space, but also top down computation (something you couldn’t easily do with matrices). Big examples might include simply taking a giant Haskell benchmark (given the setting of inets it seems like a natural fit) that is implemented in a fairly optimal way—-both algorithmically and also wrt performance—-and compare directly on large inputs.
Sorry to trash on you here, not trying to come across as insulting, but I agree that “reductions per second” is meaningless without a nuanced understanding of the potentially massive encoding blowup that compilation introduces.
I really appreciate the feedback, but the claim is that the performance scales linearly with cores, and it does. Also that it runs on GPUs, and it does. Yet, asking what is its "floating point operations per second" is nonsense, because it is not doing floating point computations. It is doing interactions. Thus the "interactions per second" term, which I didn't invent, it is the term used on the domain's literature.
I truly want to help here, but that is like asking us to tell you how many gallops per second hour car does. It just makes no sense in context. If I did invent some conversion, I would be lying, and that would be much worse than using a non-familiar term. The way to compare across languages is to benchmark and report on time. Which is like "horsepower" in that sense, as it applies to both domains.
Massive promises of amazing performance but they can't find one convincing example to showcase. It's hard to see what they're bringing to the table when even the simplest possible Haskell code just as fast on my 4 year old laptop with an ancient version of GHC (8.8). No need for an RTX 4090.
module Main where
sum' :: Int -> Int -> Int
sum' 0 x = x
sum' depth x = sum' (depth - 1) ((x \* 2) + 0) + sum' (depth - 1) ((x \* 2) + 1)
main = print $ sum' 30 0
Runs in 2.5s. Sure it's not on a GPU, but it's faster! And things don't get much more high level.
If you're going to promise amazing performance from a high level language, I'd want to see a comparison against JAX.
It's an improvement over traditional interaction nets, sure! But interaction nets have always been a failure performance-wise. Interaction nets are PL equivalent of genetic algorithms in ML, they sound like a cool idea and have a nice story, but then they always seem to be a dead end.
Interaction nets optimize parallelism at the cost of everything else. Including single-threaded performance. You're just warming up the planet by wasting massive amounts of parallel GPU cores to do what a single CPU core could do more easily. They're just the wrong answer to this problem.
You're wrong. The Haskell code is compiled to a loop, which we didn't optimize for yet. I've edited the README to use the Bitonic Sort instead, on which allocations are unavoidable. Past N=20, HVM2 performs 4x faster than GHC -O2.
1. I didn't accuse you of doing something wrong, just that your claim was wrong! It has been proven that Interaction Combinators are an optimal model of concurrent computation. I also pointed cases where it also achieves practical efficiency, over-performing GHC's highest optimization level.
2. The performance scaling claimed been indeed been achieved, and the code is open for anyone to replicate our results. The machines used are listed on the repository and paper. If you find any trouble replicating, please let me know!
3. We're not selling any product. Bend is Apache-licensed.
The insult against anyone who pushes back a little bit is not a good sign, I agree. From all we can see now, the massive speedups being claimed have zero optimal baselines. I badly would like to identify these.
I appreciate this is early days, but it's hard to get excited about what seems to be incredibly slow performance from a really simple example you give. If the simple stuff is slow, what does that mean for the complicated stuff?
If I get a chance tonight, I'll re-run it with `-s` argument, see if I get anything helpful.