Probably, some of you have heard that GCC and Visual Studio C++ Compiler are written in C++. I guess that most of the C++ compilers are (if not, my plan will fail). So, if all the compiler binaries will somehow disappear someday, all the C++ sources (including sources of the compiler itself) will become useless. But how can we achieve that?

The most simple (but also the most hard) way is to add some kind of time bomb to the sources of every C++ compiler. That time-bomb should be activated a few years later, when everyone will be using compromised version of the compiler. After the activation of the time-bomb all the compiler executables will be destroyed on the first compilation. Nice scenario, isn’t it? The problem is to add time-bomb in a way that nobody in the team of compiler developers will notice it. An interesting problem for a great hacker, I guess. Man, if you do it, you’ll become a legend!

There is an alternative option. Not so powerful, but still possible. Every virus maker who cares should add search-for-compilers-and-delete-them-when-time-bomb-is-activated code to her (or his) brainchild. The problem here is that there are not much computer viruses for *nix systems, but most of the C++ compiler instances are concentrated there. Anyway, people, we should try!

I propose the following date for the time-bomb activation: December 12, 2012. Develop your viruses and keep it quiet.

Btw, it also can be a plot for a great action movie. Imagine some well-secured subterranean storage for the Last Compiler, a lot of men with big guns, and a bunch of heroes trying to fix the men’s biggest mistake: C++ language invention.

Update on Thursday, November 19, 2009 at 9:46PM by hr0nix

Here is a beautiful idea of how can trojan horse be insensibly added to the compiler which is written in the language it compiles, thank to Alexander Monakov.

And bad news, guys. Some C++ compilers are written in C, so we have to destroy all the C compilers also. Nothing personal, we just have to do it for the common good. List of enemies can be found here.

You are given 2 pieces of code:

void func()
{
  variable = 666;
}

int variable;

void func()
{
  variable = 666;
}

Make them compile. You can add any C++ constructs after and before the whole code block, except for

1. Anything related with preprocessor.
2. Comment symbols.
3. Digraphs or trigraphs.
4. Any constructs with “variable” text inside.

In the first puzzle function must access variable “variable” declared below, not any other.

Click to read more ...

Have you read my post about LINQ performance? Well, are you interested in how quick is the C++ code that perform exactly the same thing? You’ll get the answer right now:

C++ mean: 0.500 var: 0.0833 time: 3.962 sec

So, again, why C# is slow? =)

UPDATE (July 31, 2009):

I’m just a stupid guy who has accidentally (I swear!) passed really huge array parameter by value (!) twice (!!!). Fixing myself:

C++ mean: 0.500 var: 0.0833 time: 1.888 sec

I have another question now. Why the hell is C# code doing exactly the same thing (in a way that seems effective to me) so slow compared to its C++ analogue? Is it JIT compilation overhead for those two functions? Nope. Checked it. Probably, JIT optimizer sucks? But what can C++ optimizer do what .NET JIT can not in the case of simple sequential access? Maybe access through enumerator is less effective than indexing? And here we go:

Indexing: mean=0,5000 var=0,0833 time=00:00:00.7956019

It’s more than two times faster than the C++ version! And more than 3 times faster than the one that uses enumerators in C#! Currently looking for explanation…

UPDATE 2 (July 31, 2009):

Well, .NET JITer is not as smart as I think it is. It looks like foreach applied to array actually executes all that enumerator-related stuff while the most simple for loop is heavily optimized.

I really like LINQ feature in .NET. For me it’s what people call syntactic sugar. It allows me to reduce amount of code I’m writing dramatically in many cases. Look at the following example - http://pastebin.com/d10c04029

This code estimates mean and variance of distribution given a sequence of samples. Two versions are provided. The first one uses .NET 2.0 features only and the second uses LINQ. As you can see, LINQ version is very short and awesome-looking even for this very simple example.

Are there any drawbacks? Yeah, unfortunately. And, of course, that drawbacks are performance related. Let’s compare time required for processing sequence (System.Array of double) containing 50 million samples (drawn from [0,1]-uniform distribution if that matter something for someone):

Normal: mean=0,5000 var=0,0833 time=00:00:03.6591708
LINQ: mean=0,5000 var=0,0833 time=00:00:04.5832141

Why is the LINQ version 1.5 times slower? Well, the obvious answer is that it should call a function (which is not inlined) for every member of the sequence, at least while calculating variance, and the first version should not. And, probably, computational cost of a function call is comparable to a few math operations (as it should be). So, use LINQ as a syntactic sugar only when the function you want to apply to the sequence elements is much more complex than a few additions and multiplications or when your collection is small and you just don’t care about processing time.

Read more about LINQ performance there - http://davepeck.org/linq-collection-performance/.

Strange observation: when passing List<double> instead of array, LINQ version takes about 6 seconds while performance of the normal version does not change.

MATLAB has a function for cross-validation, crossvalind. But it’s not very useful when you need to perform many experiments for different learning algorithms. That’s why I’ve implemented little tool for performing k-fold cross-validation experiments. Each experiment run can be parametrized with any learning algorithm and loss function. All you need is to wrap all your learning stuff in a bunch of simple MATLAB functions and then pass those functions as a parameters to the CrossValidation function.

Currently there are provided a few wrappers for the classification and regression algorithms presented in MATLAB: decision trees, SVM, KNN and generalized linear models. Three loss function are also provided: RMSE, MAD and misclassification loss.

Currenlty I am using this tool very intensively at work, so new versions with more algorithms, loss functions and features are likely to appear.

 Tool is available here.

I’ve just updated my RoboZZle solver. There are two major changes:

• I’ve fixed bug with program execution loop detection using approach proposed by Igor Ostrovsky there. So it can solve “Count the tiles“-like puzzles now.
• I’ve added the whole new solving approach based onto evolutionary algorithm (implemented using AForge.NET library). It is not very useful just for now, but still can solve some complicated puzzles. I’ve used eaten star count as a fitness function for program. So, if there is only one or two stars on the field, this approach works just like random search. But if you know correct path for your robot (it is obvious in many puzzles), you can mark it all with stars using field editor integrated in the solver, giving your guess to the evolutionary algorithm. The main problem with this approach is that in many puzzles correct program is very different from the program that can collect almost all the stars on the field. I need better fitness function, and probably, some other crossover and mutation ops. Currently chromosome is just a concatenation of all the program functions’ code. Mutation operator changes color or operation at random position of the chromosome. 2-point crossover exchange operations between two chromosomes.

Due to interest in my RoboZZle puzzle solver of project developer Igor Ostrovsky (who by the way has a blog with tons of really interesting stuff) I’ve decided that it would be interesting to continue development. The first thing I made was fixing small nasty bugs and improving solver UI. Then I’ve created project page on google code. Now anyone (who wants) can participate in developing this amazing (as I think) application.

Currently solver has at least one unsolved algorithmic problem with detecting infinite loops when testing generated problem. Program state history tracking with state hash set is used in current implementation. State is represented as a vector of five numbers S=(X, Y, Direction, Function, Instruction). When solver detects that current execution state has been seen before, it decides that program had entered into infinite loop and interrupts it. This algorithm detects loops very fast but, unfortunately, sometimes it can interrupt a correct program. For example, in the problem “Count the tiles” robot should rotate consequently five times on the one of the red tiles. And the state before the fifth rotation is exactly the same as before the first one. That’s why my solver can’t solve that task for now. I should think about implementing more correct but still efficient way of execution loop detection. Any suggestions are welcome!

We have also plans to make more handy puzzle image recognition. Screenshot should be accurately cropped in your favorite image editor first when using current implementation. That can’t be called “comfortable”. Ability to recognize robot position and orientation will be added too.

Everyone who just wants to see the solver in action can download binaries here (.NET 3.5 required).

Updated solver UI:

Recently my friend Ilya has shown me another puzzle-like project which is completely different from Project Euler. It’s called RoboZZle. Each problem consists of a field colored with three (or less) different colors with stars placed on it and little robot. You should write programs for that robot to help it collect all the stars. Robot command language is very simple: there are only rotation and step commands. Complexity comes with the fact that subroutines and recursion are allowed, but number of subroutines and instructions in each subroutine is limited. Puzzles there differ from very simple that can be solved in 30 seconds to really complex taking about an hour.

After solving near 40 puzzles I though that it would be really fun to make an automatic solver for RoboZZle. I’ve coded simple algorithm that uses backtracking to generate different programs of specified length and check if generated program is a solution to puzzle. After few simple optimizations made (like no right rotation followed by left or no three consequent rotations in the same direction) it has shown really good speed. I’ve solved then about ten puzzles from Moderate and Hard categories using my solver. To simplify puzzle input process my friend Ilya wrote a simple program converting screenshot of a puzzle from web-site into textual description.
Currently my solver can’t solve problems with more than 9 free slots available and all the three colors presented on the field because of huge size of program space. I hope I’ll improve it later in some ways and put on a google code.

I totally hate C++. And every day my hate grows up. But that is not just about my programming language religion. We should look deeper.

for (std::vector<double>::iterator it = values.begin();
    it != values.end();
    ++it)
 DoStuff(*it);

foreach (double value in values)
 DoStuff(value);