Problem solvers based on graphs are hard to get your head around at first, but then you get extremely elegant and powerful solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.
The only gotchas are: 1) time to get your head around 2) algorithmic complexity of the resulting solution.
Graph theory is probably the most fulfilling math application in the computer science. In a way, graph-based algorithms do magic similar to AI but in a fully determined manner. If you think about it more broadly, a graph resembles a subset of a neural network but only with {0, 1} weights.
This seems, at least upon first read, analogous to global value numbering (GVN). Or, depending on how you look at it, common subexpression elimination (CSE). I am mostly wondering why they are not mentioned in the article.
Wondered about the same thing. Perhaps the author deals with graphs with no side effects or branches? It would then trivially become CSE on a single basic block.
SSA transformations are essentially equivalent to what the author appears to be doing in terms of let-bindings [0].
I came here to mention this as well. If this problem was so critical to the company the author was working at, it seems negligent to spend a _year_ reinventing a solved problem from scratch, especially given the author's apparent history of compiler experience.
Problem solvers based on graphs are hard to get your head around at first, but then you get extremely elegant and powerful solutions to seemingly unsolvable problems.
The only gotchas are: 1) time to get your head around 2) algorithmic complexity of the resulting solution.
Graph theory is probably the most fulfilling math application in the computer science. In a way, graph-based algorithms do magic similar to AI but in a fully determined manner. If you think about it more broadly, a graph resembles a subset of a neural network but only with {0, 1} weights.
This seems, at least upon first read, analogous to global value numbering (GVN). Or, depending on how you look at it, common subexpression elimination (CSE). I am mostly wondering why they are not mentioned in the article.
Wondered about the same thing. Perhaps the author deals with graphs with no side effects or branches? It would then trivially become CSE on a single basic block.
SSA transformations are essentially equivalent to what the author appears to be doing in terms of let-bindings [0].
[0] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/278283.278285
I came here to mention this as well. If this problem was so critical to the company the author was working at, it seems negligent to spend a _year_ reinventing a solved problem from scratch, especially given the author's apparent history of compiler experience.
If you like reasoning about a program in terms of expression trees/graphs, I recently discovered that Wolfram Language has built-ins for this:
https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/ExpressionTree.ht...