Lambda the Ultimate

Super and Inner — Together at Last! by David S. Goldberg, Robert Bruce Findler, and Matthew Flatt, 2004.

In an object-oriented language, a derived class may declare a method with the same signature as a method in the base class. The meaning of the re-declaration depends on the language. Most commonly, the new declaration overrides the base declaration, perhaps completely replacing it, or perhaps using super to invoke the old implementation. Another possibility is that the base class always controls the method implementation, and the new declaration merely augments the method in the case that the base method calls inner. Each possibility has advantages and disadvantages. In this paper, we explain why programmers need both kinds of method redeclaration, and we present a language that integrates them. We also present a formal semantics for the new language, and we describe an implementation for MzScheme.

To me, an interesting aspect was interleaving of overrides and augmentations of the same method.

The Fortress blog has a recent post, Why Object-Oriented Languages Need Tail Calls, where Guy Steele argues for the necessity of proper tail call implementations without rehashing two of the classic arguments: state machines and the continuation passing style. It starts by mentioning William Cook's On Understanding Data Abstraction, Revisited:

In this blog post we extend one of his examples in order to make a completely different point: object-oriented programming languages need tail calls correctly implemented, not just as a "trivial and optional" optimization of the use of stack space that could be achieved by using iteration statements, but in order to preserve object-oriented abstractions.

The post also mentions other papers previously discussed on LtU: Automata as Macros, and A Tail-Recursive Machine with Stack Inspection.

Larry O'Brien recently interviewed three of the Gang of Four about their seminal work on patterns. Larry teased the interview's readers for awhile, but he eventually asked the pressing question that most language designers ask and debate about patterns ;) Here it is:

Larry: GoF came out relatively early in the ascent of OOP as the mainstream paradigm and, for better or worse, "patterns" seem to be associated with OO approaches. You even hear functional and dynamic advocates boasting that their languages "don't need" patterns. How do you respond to that?

Erich: Just as an aside, it is also easy to forget that we wrote design patterns before there was Java or C#.

Ralph: Some of those languages don't need some of the patterns in Design Patterns because their languages provide alternative ways of solving the problems. Our patterns are for languages between C++ and Smalltalk, which includes just about everything called "object-oriented," but they certainly are not for every programming language. I don't think anybody actually says that programmers in other languages don't need patterns; they just have a different set of patterns.

Erich: Design patterns eventually emerge for any language. Design déjà-vu is language neutral. While these experiences are not always captured as patterns, they do exist. The design principles for Erlang come to mind.

Larry: Where would a person go to learn about patterns for dynamic and functional languages? Who's making good contributions?

Ralph: If by "dynamic" you mean dynamic object-oriented languages like Smalltalk, Ruby or Python, then our patterns are applicable. Functional languages require different patterns, but I don't know who is working on them.

Note: At the end of the interview, Erich says that they tried refactoring the patterns into new categories in 2005. The draft breakdown he provides (accidentally???) takes out Memento, Chain of Responsibility, Bridge, Adapter, and Observer.

As I said above these are just notes in a draft state. Doing a refactoring without test cases is always dangerous...

UPDATE: The Gang of Four have an accompanying article for the interview that they wrote as a group. See A Look Back: Why We Wrote Design Patterns: Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented Software.

In Objects as Modules in Newspeak, Gilad Bracha et al. describe a way to avoid the coupling in inherent constructs found in many OO languages such as a global namespace, "static" stateful variables, globally accessible object constructors, etc.

We describe support for modularity in Newspeak, a new programming language descended from Smalltalk and Self. Like Self, all computation — even an object’s own access to its internal structure — is performed by invoking methods on objects. However, like Smalltalk, Newspeak is class-based. Classes can be nested arbitrarily, as in Beta. Since all names denote method invocations, all classes are virtual; in particular, superclasses are virtual, so all classes act as mixins. Unlike its predecessors, there is no static state in Newspeak, nor is there a global namespace. Top level classes act as module definitions, which are independent, immutable, self-contained parametric namespaces. They can be instantiated into modules which may be stateful and mutually recursive. Naturally, like its predecessors, Newspeak is reflective: a mirror library allows structured access to the program meta-level.

There's a lot in here that should be of interest to LtUers interested in object capability based security.

Andrei Alexandrescu: Iterators Must Go, BoostCon 2009 keynote.

Presents a simple yet far-reaching replacement for iterators, called ranges, and interesting "D" libraries built on it: std.algorithm and std.range.

Ranges pervade D: algorithms, lazy evaluation, random numbers, higher-order functions, foreach statement...

(Related: SERIES, enumerators, SRFI 1, and The Case For D by the same author)

On Monday, July 13th the C++ standards committee voted "Concepts" out of consideration for C++0x.

First, skepticism regarding the feasibility and usefulness of concepts intensified the antipathy towards this proposal. Some people expressed concerns about compile-time and runtime overhead. Second, the creators of the Concepts proposal tried desperately to improve and patch Concepts. The last nail in the coffin was Bjarne Stroustrup's paper "Simplifying the Use of Concepts" from June. It's a masterpiece in terms of presenting Concepts but it also scared folks. The general sense was that concepts were broken, the committee was not sure what the correct direction was to fix them, and it would probably take several more years to come up with a reasonable fix that would achieve consensus. Considering that Concepts were originally designed to simplify C++, a critical mass of committee members agreed in July 2009 that it was time to bid Concepts goodbye.

Edit:

For more on the meeting see "The View (or trip report) from the July 2009 C++ Standard Meeting" part 1 and part 2

Edit 2:

Bjarne Stroustrup on The C++0x "Remove Concepts" Decision.

Factor: an extensible interactive language, Google Tech Talk by Slava Pestov.

Factor is a general-purpose programming language which has been in development for a little over five years and is influenced by Forth, Lisp, and Smalltalk. Factor takes the best ideas from Forth -- simplicity, succinct code, emphasis on interactive testing, meta-programming -- and brings modern high-level language features such as garbage collection, object orientation, and functional programming familiar to users of languages such as Python and JavaScript. Recognizing that no programming language is an island, Factor is portable, ships with a full-featured standard library, deploys stand-alone binaries, and interoperates with C and Objective-C.

In this talk, I will give the rationale for Factor's creation, present an overview of the language, and show how Factor can be used to solve real-world problems with a minimum of fuss. At the same time, I will emphasize Factor's extensible syntax, meta-programming and reflection capabilities, and show that these features, which are unheard of in the world of mainstream programming languages, make programs easier to write, more robust, and fun.

Verifiable Functional Purity in Java. Matthew Finifter, Adrian Mettler, Naveen Sastry, and David Wagner. To appear at 15th ACM Conference on Computer and Communication Security (CCS 2008).

Proving that particular methods within a code base are functionally pure - deterministic and side-effect free - would aid verification of security properties including function invertibility, reproducibility of computation, and safety of untrusted code execution. Until now it has not been possible to automatically prove a method is functionally pure within a high-level imperative language in wide use such as Java. We discuss a technique to prove that methods are functionally pure by writing programs in a subset of Java called Joe-E; a static verifier ensures that programs fall within the subset. In Joe-E, pure methods can be trivially recognized from their method signature.

The paper includes a nice discussion of security benefits that can stem from being able to identify pure functions (of course, it is not obvious that guarantees at the programming language level are maintained at the run time level). I am sure many here have opinions about whether it makes more sense to try to graft purity on an imperative language, exposing it as an added feature, or to move programmers to functional languages..

UpgradeJ: Incremental Typechecking for Class Upgrades, Gavin Bierman, Matthew Parkinson and James Noble.

One of the problems facing developers is the constant evolution of components that are used to build applications. This evolution is typical of any multi-person or multi-site software project. How can we program in this environment? More precisely, how can language design address such evolution? In this paper we attack two significant issues that arise from constant component evolution: we propose language-level extensions that permit multiple, co-existing versions of classes and the ability to dynamically upgrade from one version of a class to another, whilst still maintaining type safety guarantees and requiring only lightweight extensions to the runtime infrastructure. We show how our extensions, whilst intuitive, provide a great deal of power by giving a number of examples. Given the subtlety of the problem, we formalize a core fragment of our language and prove a number of important safety properties.

There has been an energetic discussion of API evolution in the forum, so when I saw this paper I thought it might be of interest to LtU readers.

I just noticed Stroustrup is about to publish this introductory book.

I am stunned on many levels, so I will keep my comments short.

In general, this seems like HTDP for C++, that is it is not a comprehensive text about C++ or about CS in general, but rather one aimed at teaching the basics of software construction. This is a good idea, and many have written books with similar goals in the past, of course.

I wonder what are the chances that any university not employing Stroustrup will switch to C++ for their introductory course (if they are not using it already). It seems to me everyone is teaching Java...

My second observation is that a large fraction of the book is devoted to STL. Which a good thing on many levels. Some of the topics may even be explained functionally.

My third observation is that even given the intended audience and goals the ToC seems really sparse. I wonder if that's all the book is going to contain.