Latent Effects for Reusable Language Components

Latent Effects for Reusable Language Components, by Birthe van den Berg, Tom Schrijvers, Casper Bach Poulsen, Nicolas Wu:

The development of programming languages can be quite complicated and costly. Hence, much effort has been devoted to the modular definition of language features that can be reused in various combinations to define new languages and experiment with their semantics. A notable outcome of these efforts is the algebra-based “datatypes "a la carte" (DTC) approach. When combined with algebraic effects, DTC can model a wide range of common language features. Unfortunately, the
current state of the art does not cover modular definitions of advanced control-flow mechanisms that defer execution to an appropriate point, such as call-by-name and call-by-need evaluation, as well as (multi-)staging. This paper defines latent effects, a generic class of such control-flow mechanisms. We demonstrate how function abstractions, lazy computations and a MetaML-like staging can all be expressed in a modular fashion using latent effects, and how they can be combined in various ways to obtain complex semantics. We provide a full Haskell implementation of our effects and handlers with a range of examples.

Looks like a nice generalization of the basic approach taken by algebraic effects to more subtle contexts. Algebraic effects have been discussed here on LtU many times. I think this description from section 2.3 is a pretty good overview of their approach:

LE&H is based on a different, more sophisticated structure than AE&H’s free monad. This structure supports non-atomic operations (e.g., function abstraction, thunking, quoting) that contain or delimit computations whose execution may be deferred. Also, the layered handling is different. The idea is still the same, to replace bit by bit the structure of the tree by its meaning. Yet, while AE&H grows the meaning around the shrinking tree, LE&H grows little “pockets of meaning” around the individual nodes remaining in the tree, and not just around the root. The latter supports deferred effects because later handlers can still re-arrange the semantic pockets created by earlier handlers.

Selective Functors

From Andrey Mokhov's twitter feed:

Is there any intermediate abstraction between applicative functors and monads? And if yes, what is it? In a new paper with @geo2A, @simonmar and @dimenix we explore "selective functors", which are essentially applicative functors with branching:

We've implemented selective functors in Haskell:, OCaml:, and even Coq: (the Coq repository contains some proofs of correctness that our selective instances are lawful). And there is also a PureScript fork!

ICFP Programming Contest 2018

Yep, it on!

Sequent Calculus as a Compiler Intermediate Language

Sequent Calculus as a Compiler Intermediate Language
2016 by Paul Downen, Luke Maurer, Zena M. Ariola, Simon Peyton Jones

The typed λ-calculus arises canonically as the term language for a logic called natural deduction, using the Curry-Howard isomorphism: the pervasive connection between logic and programming languages asserting that propositions are types and proofs are programs. Indeed, for many people, the λ-calculus is the living embodiment of Curry-Howard.

But natural deduction is not the only logic! Conspicuously, natural deduction has a twin, born in the very same paper, called the sequent calculus. Thanks to the Curry-Howard isomorphism, terms of the sequent calculus can also be seen as a programming language with an emphasis on control flow.

Resource Polymorphism

Resource Polymorphism, by Guillaume Munch-Maccagnoni:

We present a resource-management model for ML-style programming languages, designed to be compatible with the OCaml philosophy and runtime model. This is a proposal to extend the OCaml language with destructors, move semantics, and resource polymorphism, to improve its safety, efficiency, interoperability, and expressiveness. It builds on the ownership-and-borrowing models of systems programming languages (Cyclone, C++11, Rust) and on linear types in functional programming (Linear Lisp, Clean, Alms). It continues a synthesis of resources from systems programming and resources in linear logic initiated by Baker.

It is a combination of many known and some new ideas. On the novel side, it highlights the good mathematical structure of Stroustrup's "Resource acquisition is initialisation" (RAII) idiom for resource management based on destructors, a notion sometimes confused with finalizers, and builds on it a notion of resource polymorphism, inspired by polarisation in proof theory, that mixes C++'s RAII and a tracing garbage collector (GC).
The proposal targets a new spot in the design space, with an automatic and predictable resource-management model, at the same time based on lightweight and expressive language abstractions. It is backwards-compatible: current code is expected to run with the same performance, the new abstractions fully combine with the current ones, and it supports a resource-polymorphic extension of libraries. It does so with only a few additions to the runtime, and it integrates with the current GC implementation. It is also compatible with the upcoming multicore extension, and suggests that the Rust model for eliminating data-races applies.

Interesting questions arise for a safe and practical type system, many of which have already been thoroughly investigated in the languages and prototypes Cyclone, Rust, and Alms.

An ambitious goal, and it would be an incredibly useful addition to OCaml. Might even displace Rust in some places, since you can theoretically avoid triggering the GC, but you have the excellent GC available when needed. This is definitely a pain point for Rust.

How efficient is partial sharing?

Partial sharing graphs offer a reduction model for the lambda calculus that is optimal in a sense put forward by Jean Jacques Levy. This model has seen interest wax and wane: initially it was thought to offer the most efficient possible technology for implementing the lambda calculus, but then an important result showed that bookkeeping overheads of any such model could be very high (Asperti & Mairson 1998). This result had a chilling effect on the initial wave of excitement over the technology.

Now Stefano Guerrini, one of the early investigators of partial sharing graphs, has an article with Marco Solieri (Guerrini & Solieri 2017) arguing that the gains from optimality can be very high and that partial sharing graphs can be relatively close to the best possible efficiency, within a quadratic factor on a conservative analysis (this is relatively close in terms of elementary recursion). Will the argument and result lead to renewed interest in partial sharing graphs from implementors of functional programming? We'll see...

(Asperti & Mairson 1998) Parallel beta reduction is not elementary recursive.

(Guerrini & Solieri 2017) Is the Optimal Implementation inefficient? Elementarily not.

Is Haskell the right language for teaching functional programming principles?

No! (As Simon Thompson explains.)
You cannot not love the "exploration of the length function" at the bottom. Made me smile in the middle of running errands.

A unified approach to solving seven programming problems

A fun pearl by William E. Byrd, Michael Ballantyne, Gregory Rosenblatt, and Matthew Might from ICFP: seven programming challenges solved (easily!) using a relational interpreter. One challenge, for example, is to find quines. Another is to find programs that produce different results with lexical vs. dynamic scope.

The interpreter is implemented in miniKanren (of course), inside Racket (of course).

ICFP 2017 live streaming

If you are one of the few LtU-ers not presenting (just kidding...), you can get your functional programming fix by following the live stream from ICFP, starting tomorrow at 11:00 (UK). Want to know when to tune in? Check out the incredible program!

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages

Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages (PACMPL) is a Gold Open Access journal publishing research on all aspects of programming languages, from design to implementation and from mathematical formalisms to empirical studies. Each issue of the journal is devoted to a particular subject area within programming languages and will be announced through publicized Calls for Papers.

See the ToC of the September 2017, ICFP issue, here. Some very cool stuff.


XML feed