[erlang-questions] Fwd: Is there a good source for documentation on BEAM?
Tue May 8 07:35:01 CEST 2012
"(b) We learn only at the end of those 5 pages that there are
really TWO different things called BEAM:
- the 'high level abstract instructions' generated
by the compiler, which is pretty stable, and
- the 'internal form' meant for execution, generated
by the loader, which 'has changed many times'."
Then there's the recommendation I read somewhere (I believe by a HiPE
implementor) that it makes more sense to target Core Erlang. So, in a
way, there are three levels you could target, two of them plausibly
I got interested in this issue when I noticed that ECLiPSe Prolog
*used* to have working multicore parallelism, but then ... not. Wow:
one of the better constraint programming packages, and it's not
multicore. That seems like an opportunity going to waste. I also
noticed that there's a Prolog implementation in Erlang.
ECLiPSe provides a lot of power. It seems to be languishing anyway.
ECLiPSe-over-BEAM might solve a lot of problems of viability for
ECLiPSe, by reducing the workload on its maintainers while potentially
increasing its user base. And I'm sure Ericsson could find uses for
ECLiPSe in telecom network design and optimization, which (if there
were ECLiPSe-over-BEAM) could further increase Erlang's value within
Just to give one possible example.
On Tue, May 8, 2012 at 6:57 AM, Richard O'Keefe <ok@REDACTED> wrote:
> On 7/05/2012, at 8:47 PM, Joe Armstrong wrote:
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Joe Armstrong <erlang@REDACTED>
>> Date: Mon, May 7, 2012 at 10:46 AM
>> Subject: Re: [erlang-questions] Is there a good source for
>> documentation on BEAM?
>> To: Jonathan Coveney <jcoveney@REDACTED>
>> I did start writing a description but it's not very complete.
>> This is on my list of things-to-do-one-day-when-you-get-time
>> See http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4764922/beam.pdf
>> If there is any interest I could up the priority :-)
> I would have expected it to be a matter of personal and
> professional pride that
> One reason that several of my EEPs and so on never got model
> implementations is that the BEAM instructions have less than
> a 10th of the documentation that the WAM instructions had at
> Quintus. It does seem clear that the Erlang/OTP team are
> much better programmers than Quintus were, because whenever
> we forgot to document some detail of an instruction, someone
> was sure to get it wrong and new builds would start crashing
> horribly. It's also a reason I've never contributed at a low
> level to SWI Prolog.
> Two of the best documented abstract instruction sets I've seen
> are Icon (there's a whole book about it) and Lua (there's a
> document someone wrote with nearly a page per instruction; if
> I could bring myself to _care_ about Lua I could start writing
> extensions for it tomorrow). Since Hassan Aït-Kaci wrote his
> little book about the WAM, that counts as well documented too,
> except of course that I doubt anyone actually follows it all
> that closely, Quintus certainly departed from it. (And yes of
> course's there's the Java VM book too; I don't suppose it's a
> coïncidence that Tim Lindholm worked at Quintus and times on
> the WAM.)
> Looking at that document of yours, Joe,
> (a) Out of 8 pages, only 5 are actually about the BEAM.
> (b) We learn only at the end of those 5 pages that there are
> really TWO different things called BEAM:
> - the 'high level abstract instructions' generated
> by the compiler, which is pretty stable, and
> - the 'internal form' meant for execution, generated
> by the loader, which 'has changed many times'.
> No *wonder* I failed to learn about the BEAM by reading the
> emulator code and trying to match what I saw there against
> the "instructions" I saw in the .S files.
> (c) The document begins in the middle. The beginning is
> the *architecture*. Given the architecture, a lot of the
> instructions become much easier to understand.
> (d) The document is very obviously a draft, so there's not
> much more it's fair to say at the moment.
> With there being two "BEAM"s, there need to be two manuals.
> "External BEAM", quite full, for people working on tools that
> generate, parse, or otherwise manipulate that kind of code.
> "Internal BEAM", taking an external BEAM background and
> architectural understanding for granted, that tells people
> working on the loader, emulator, HiPE, &c what they need to
> Since the Erlang/OTP team and HiPE teams have evidently
> managed without the "Internal BEAM" document, the
> "External BEAM" document is the priority.
> erlang-questions mailing list
More information about the erlang-questions