Based on that experience...
1) Yes, but that's not huge by modern standard.
2) Q is a DSL version of K. As others have commented, K is a pretty clean implementation of APL, and Q makes K more approachable.
3) I have to agree here, but Q for Mortals makes up for it.
4) It is really fast. As we all know, a vast majority of us actually don't have terabytes and terabytes of data, especially after a reasonably cleanup / ETL / applying common sense. I suppose it helped that I worked in finance, which meant my desktop had 16GB of memory in 2009 and 128GB of memory on a server shared by 4-5 traders.
Finally, Q was never intended for general-purpose computing nor a widespread adoption. At least when I was an active user, the mailing list had the same 20-30 people asking questions and 3-4 people answering them, including [email protected] (= Arthur Whitney, the creator). Back then, I'd say there were at most 2-3k active users of Q/K in the world. Now that Kx Systems is part of First Derivative and has been working on expanding their customer base, perhaps they have more...?
The machines that $dayjob-1 used to build dominated the STAC-M3 for a few years (2013-2015) because we paid careful attention to how kdb liked to work, and how users liked to structure their shards. Our IO engine was built to handle that exceptionally well, so, not only did in-memory operations roar, the out of memory streaming from disk ops positively screamed on our units (and whimpered on others).
I miss those days to some degree. Was kind of fun to have a set of insanely fast boxen to work with.
OP could have phrased it better, but I presume his point was that 500KB is extremely small by modern standards. The whole executable fits comfortably in L3, so you'll probably never have a full cache miss for instructions. On the other hand, while it's cool that it's small, I'm not sure that binary size is a good proxy for performance. Instruction cache misses are rarely going to be a limiting factor.
k's performance is a combination of a lot of small things, each one independently doesn't seem to be that meaningful. And yet, the combination screams.
The main interpreter core, for example, used to be <16K code and fit entirely within the I-cache; that means bytecode dispatch was essentially never re-fetched or re-decoded to micro instructions, and all the speculative execution predictors have a super high hit rate.
When Python switched the interpreter loop from a switch to a threaded one, for example, they got ~20% speedup[0]; I wouldn't be surprised if the fitting entirely within the I-cache (which K did and Python didn't at the time) gives another 20% speedup.
Yes, I presume it's very fast because of a number of smart design decisions. I would guess that the relatively small on-disk size of executable is a consequence of these decisions, rather than a cause of the high speed. And as you point it, it's really the design of the core interpreter that matters.
When Python switched the interpreter loop from a switch to a threaded one, for example, they got ~20% speedup[0]; I wouldn't be surprised if the fitting entirely within the I-cache (which K did and Python didn't at the time) gives another 20% speedup.
I'm familiar with this improvement, and talk it up often. Since certain opcodes are more likely to follow other opcodes (even if they are globally rare) threaded dispatch can significantly reduce branch prediction errors. But despite not having measured the number of I-cache misses on the Python benchmarks, I'd be utterly astonished if there were enough of them to allow for a 20% speedup. My guess would be that the potential is something around 1%, but if you can prove that it's more than 10% I'd be excited to help you work on solving it.
The people who surely know what difference it makes today are Nial Dalton and Arthur Whitney.
That sounds quite plausible. The front-end of Intel processors (the parts that deal with making sure there is a queue of instructions ready to execute by the backend) has made some major advances since then. The biggest jumps were probably Nehalem in 2007, and then Sandy Bridge in 2009.
It's not that binary size no longer matters, but you almost have to go out of your way to make instruction cache misses be the tightest bottleneck on a hot path. And when it would be the bottleneck, the branch predictor and prefetch are so good that it's usually only a problem when combined with poor branch prediction, so it really only adds to the delay rather than causing it.
Lisp on the other hand is more like Emacs - naturally. Here we have a small, carefully chosen orthogonal basis of abstract operations - not domain-specific, but "theoretically-foundational" small basis. Then you have a library of macros on top of that, and ability, of course, to extend.
In other words, basis for APL is "classical" math, made executable and expanded with mechanisms required to put in one line programming constructs (logic, control flow, ordering...). It's harder to expand, but you don't often need that. Lisp is a specific branch of math, lambda calculus, which is provably enough to solve arbitrary programming problem. The "inner core" of Lisp is also hard to expand, but what you expand for your task is "the usage" of the language, which is made to be straightforwardly expandable.
To me it's hard to say what is better.
It still is, but the hot path is much smaller than that.
> 2) The Q language syntax, while consistent, is fairly arcane and throwback to decades past.
I can't comment about this. I don't mind the syntax. I prefer k syntax though.
> 3) The documentation and driver support is abysmal.
This is getting a lot better. The fusion API[1] goes a long way towards better "drivers", and the new documentation site[2] shows a lot of energy being put into organization. There's also Q for mortals[3] which is linearized for people who like that.
[1]: http://code.kx.com/q/interfaces/fusion/
[3]: http://code.kx.com/q4m3/preface/
> 4) It's supposedly extremely fast, but I can't help but wonder if this is a lot of successful PR and hype
There are a lot of good benchmarks of kdb[4] unlike Oracle :)
J has JDB[2] and Jd[3] for things somewhat similar to qdb with Jd being the commercial offering similar to qdb rather than JDB.
I would probably choose APL over Q if that were a choice. In J you can always make your definitions (verbs, nouns, etc...) plain words if you like the way Q reads.
[1] jsoftware.com
[2] http://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/JDB
[3] http://www.jsoftware.com/jdhelp/overview.htmlI'm aware of the licensing costs, I'm more curious about whether Dyalog is obtaining popularity versus J, and if so, why. Of course, three new people going to the Dyalog conference would be a 10% increase in popularity, it looks like… so maybe this far out on the long tail it doesn't matter.
Being slightly more serious, I do web dev, mostly backend, for a radio astronomy observatory. I don't know anything about the science, but I wind up executing their routines in the cluster and doing typical database apps. I don't have much time on the side but I have been enjoying trying to learn J and realizing how much applied math is missing in my background!
I am one of those who stare at arrays! [1]
[1] http://www.aprogramminglanguage.com/My ideal language would be K's function syntax and k-tree data structure/namespaces, but with J's primitives and standard library.
1.) The in-memory DB .exe was around 500 KB. Imagine that.
2.) The Q language syntax, while consistent, is fairly arcane and throwback to decades past.
3.) The documentation and driver support is abysmal.
4.) It's supposedly extremely fast, but I can't help but wonder if this is a lot of successful PR and hype (like hedge fund bosses insisting on Oracle because it's the only db that 'scales')