Lambda the Ultimate

Side effects are both the essence and bane of imperative programming. The programmer must carefully coordinate actions to manage their side effects upon each other. Such coordination is complex, error-prone, and fragile. Coherent reaction is a new model of change-driven computation that coordinates effects automatically. State changes trigger events called reactions that in turn change other states. A coherent execution order is one in which each reaction executes before any others that are affected by its changes. A coherent order is discovered iteratively by detecting incoherencies as they occur and backtracking their effects. Unlike alternative solutions, much of the power of imperative programming is retained, as is the common sense notion of mutable state. Automatically coordinating actions lets the programmer express what to do, not when to do it.

Coherence is not a problem of constraint satisfaction — it is a problem of constraint discovery. Previously there have been two alternative solutions: reduce the expressive power of the language so that constraint discovery becomes decidable (as in state machines and dataflow languages), or leave it to the programmer to deal with.

Awesome blog post by Jonathan Edwards in the novel literary style of mock paper review comments.

Sumit Nain and Moshe Vardi, Branching Time vs. Linear Time: Semantical Perspective, invited ATVA'07 paper.

...this paper puts forward an, admittedly provocative, thesis, which is that process-equivalence theory allowed itself to wander in the “wilderness” for lack of accepted guiding principles. The obvious definition of contextual equivalence was not scrupulously adhered to, and the underspecificity of the formalisms proposed led to too many interpretations of equivalence.

In revisiting the notion of process equivalence, which is a fairly central part of concurrency theory, Nain and Vardi end up arguing in favor of a purely trace-based notion of equivalence and the use of linear-time logics. This in turn leads to a rejection of bisimulation as a tool for establishing process equivalences:

The gist of our argument is that branching-time-based notions of process equivalence are not reasonable notions of process equivalence, as they distinguish between processes that are not contextually distinguishable. In contrast, the linear-time view does yield an appropriate notion of contextual equivalence.
...

In spite of its mathematical elegance and ubiquity in logic, bisimulation is not a reasonable notion of process equivalence, as it makes distinctions that cannot be observed.

They take pains to point out that they are not claiming that bisimulation or CTL should be abandoned or are not useful. Rather their emphasis is on the fact that bisimulation is not a contextual equivalence and is therefore not appropriate for establishing equivalence between (for example) a specification and its implementation. As they say in the conclusion of the paper:

While one may not realistically expect a single paper to overwrite about 30 years of research, a more modest hope would be for this paper to stimulate a lively discussion on the basic principles of process-equivalence theory.

Not sure if Cybernetics is on topic or off topic for Ltu, but some readers may appreciate the fact that this is a recursive system (ie functional). Viable System Architecture