Fox flagged that the "A diagram is worth 10,000 words" quote
appeared twice in the paper but nothing was actually illustrated.
Fixed by:
1. Refreshing every .dot source to match current reality:
- docs/asm-architecture.dot: 22 KB (was "13 KB"), 14 syscalls
(was 4), 91 builtins (was 34), djb2 hash (was "linear scan"),
TCP stack + heap-snapshot + portal boxes added.
- docs/benchmark-sumto.dot: sum-to(1M) i5-8350U numbers; C
--fast 238 ms, asm 670 ms, Python --fast 5,136 ms. Was
sum-to(50k) with stale numbers.
- docs/benchmark-ack.dot: ackermann(3,8) i5-8350U numbers. Was
ack(3,4) with stale numbers.
- docs/benchmark-binary-size.dot: asm 22 KB, C 205 KB, busybox
2.1 MB, python3 8.0 MB. Was comparing against different
baselines.
2. Regenerated all PNGs via `make docs`.
3. Embedded in the paper at meaningful points:
- §2 Architecture (Python): python-architecture.png
- §6.4 Three-way bench: benchmark-sumto.png, benchmark-ack.png
- §11 Three Implementations: c-architecture.png, asm-
architecture.png
- §11.3 HTTP + sockets: benchmark-binary-size.png
4. Removed the redundant quote from §12.3; the one in §11
remains because §11 now follows it with two real diagrams.
Prerequisite fox noted: "make sure diagrams are up to date before
using them to code." Done — every embedded figure has the current
numbers/topology, not the old ones.
4 architecture diagrams (Graphviz DOT → PNG):
python-architecture.dot — bytecode VM + continuations + portal
c-architecture.dot — tree-walker + VM + JIT tiers
asm-architecture.dot — syscalls-only, 13KB binary
jit-pipeline.dot — AST → x86_64 machine code flow
docs/README.md — full architecture docs with embedded diagrams
and performance summary across all implementations.
Makefile: add asm-repl, docs target, clean-docs. Header comments
document all targets and test suites.
CLAUDE.md: add "A diagram is worth 10,000 words" (russell@unturf.com),
implementation table, test suite inventory.
Assembly is 2.5-4x faster than C interpreter on recursive workloads.
JIT remains 33x faster than hand-written assembly.
