## Lifted inference: normalizing loops by evaluation

Lifted inference: normalizing loops by evaluation. Oleg Kiselyov and Chung-chieh Shan. 2009 Workshop on Normalization by Evaluation.

Many loops in probabilistic inference map almost every individual in their domain to the same result. Running such loops symbolically takes time sublinear in the domain size. Using normalization by evaluation with first-class delimited continuations, we lift inference procedures to reap this speed-up without interpretive overhead. To express nested loops, we use multiple control delimiters for metacircular interpretation. To express loops over a powerset domain, we convert nested loops over a subset to unnested loops.

The paper is a bit hard to follow, but there are enough little tricks here to merit attentive reading. Or better yet, read the code. The basic PLT idea might be summed as doing abstract interpretation on a shallowly embedded DSL using delimited continuations.

## Verified Programming in Guru

Verified Programming in Guru is a tutorial introduction to Guru:

GURU is a pure functional programming language, which is similar in some ways to Caml and Haskell. But GURU also contains a language for writing formal proofs demonstrating the properties of programs. So there are really two languages: the language of programs, and the language of proofs.

In comparison to Coq:

GURU is inspired largely by the COQ theorem prover, used for formalized mathematics and theoretical computer science, as well as program verification. Like COQ, GURU has syntax for both proofs and programs, and supports dependent types. GURU does not have as complex forms of polymorphism and dependent types as COQ does. But GURU supports some features that are difficult or impossible for COQ to support, which are useful for practical program verification. In COQ, the compiler must be able to confirm that all programs are uniformly terminating: they must terminate on all possible inputs. We know from basic recursion theory or theoretical computer science that this means there are some programs which really do terminate on all inputs that the compiler will not be able to confirm do so. Furthermore, some programs, like web servers or operating systems, are not intended to terminate. So that is a significant limitation. Other features GURU has that COQ lacks include support for functional modeling of non-functional constructs like destructive updates of data structures and arrays; and better support for proving properties of dependently typed functions.

The tutorial is worth a read to anybody new to this style of programming as it is one of the most gentle introductions to dependent types and automated program verification that I've seen.

## Fully-parameterized, first-class modules with hygienic macros

Fully-parameterized, first-class modules with hygienic macros, dissertation by Martin Gasbichler, 2006.

It is possible to define a formal semantics for configuration, elaboration, linking, and evaluation of fully-parameterized first-class modules with hygienic macros, independent compilation, and code sharing. This dissertation defines such a semantics making use of explicit substitution to formalize hygienic expansion and linking. In the module system, interfaces define the static semantics of modules and include the definitions of exported macros. This enables full parameterization and independent compilation of modules even in the presence of macros. Thus modules are truly exchangeable components of the program. The basis for the module system is an operational semantics for hygienic macro expansion - computational macros as well as rewriting-based macros. The macro semantics provides deep insight into the nature of hygienic macro expansion through the use of explicit substitutions instead of conventional renaming techniques. The semantics also includes the formal description of Macro Scheme, the meta-language used for evaluating computational macros.

A very readable, interesting, and useful work.

## Ziggurat

Ziggurat is a framework for writing extensible programming languages, and for defining static semantics for those languages. In other words, it is a language designer's toolkit.

Ziggurat is based on macros. When building a language using Ziggurat, it is easy to make that language extensible by adding a macro system. Ziggurat macros allow for incremental extension of the language by rewriting. What makes Ziggurat different from other macro systems is that Ziggurat allows the language extender to optionally define static semantics for her new language, and connect these static semantics amongst language levels. This makes it possible to write specialized analysis algorithms for the higher-level languages, either for optimization purposes, profiling purposes, debugging purposes, or whatever task analysis is put to.

Strangely enough this project from Olin Shivers and David Fisher was not mentioned here before.

Those with access may want to check out the paper on Ziggurat in the September 2008 double issue of JFP.

## Staging with Delimited Control

Yukiyoshi Kameyama, Oleg Kiselyov, Chung-chieh Shan, Shifting the Stage: Staging with Delimited Control. PEPM2009.

It is often hard to write programs that are ef?cient yet reusable. For example, an efficient implementation of Gaussian elimination should be specialized to the structure and known static properties of the input matrix. The most profitable optimizations, such as choosing the best pivoting or memoization, cannot be expected of even an advanced compiler because they are specific to the domain, but expressing these optimizations directly makes for ungainly source code. Instead, a promising and popular way to reconcile efficiency with reusability is for a domain expert to write code generators. Two pillars of this approach are types and effects. Typed multilevel languages such as MetaOCaml ensure safety: a well-typed code generator neither goes wrong nor generates code that goes wrong. Side effects such as state and control ease correctness: an effectful generator can resemble the textbook presentation of an algorithm, as is familiar to domain experts, yet insert let for memoization and if for bounds-checking, as is necessary for efficiency. However, adding effects blindly renders multilevel types unsound...

Code generators have to be written in CPS or monadic style due to the need for let-insertion and if-insertion. This makes writing code generators unattractive to many programmers. The paper provides an alternative based on delimited continuations, and paper proposes a sound combination of staging and delimited continuations. The combination has been implemented. The authors show how pleasant it becomes to write interesting code generators (specializing dynamic programming and Gaussian elimination codes). The paper and the code for many generators is available online. I suggest reading the explanation of the problem, and then looking at the actual code generators.

## Factor: an extensible interactive language

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.

## Hardware Design and Functional Programming: a Perfect Match

Hardware Design and Functional Programming: a Perfect Match by Mary Sheeran, Journal of Universal Computer Science, Special issue devoted to the Brazilian Symposium on Programming Languages, 2005.

This is a slightly odd paper that explains why I am still as fascinated by the combination of functional programming and hardware design as I have ever been. It includes some looking back over my own research and that of others, and contains 60 references. It explains what kinds of research I am doing now, and why, and also presents some neat new results about parallel prefix circuits. It ends by posing lots of hard questions that we need to answer if we are to be able to design and verify circuits successfully in the future.

## COLA Brainfuck

From the Software Architecture Group at the Hasso Plattner Institut:

Our tutorial on COLA provides insight on how programming languages can be implemented using the combined abstractions and an implementation of parsing expression grammars in COLA. The "esoteric" programming language brainfuck was chosen for its simplicity, which allows for concentrating on COLA's features.

Previously: COLA and Open, extensible object models; via neuraxon77.

## Scheme macro systems

[Chicken-users] macro systems and chicken (long), Alex Shinn, Apr 2008.

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the Chicken
community, and the Lisp community in general, about the
different macro systems, so I thought provide some
background information and discussion of the eggs available
in Chicken and their uses.

A very nice post that provides a historical overview and implementations of a hygienic (swap! a b) macro in different macro systems: syntactic closures, reverse syntactic closures, explicit renaming, syntax-case, and syntax-rules.

I didn't know syntactic closures before, and find their interface and implementation simple and easy to understand. Any reasons why they aren't used more in Scheme?

## Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development

Applied Metamodelling: A Foundation for Language Driven Development (2004)
by Tony Clark, Paul Sammut, James Willans

An excerpt:

Language-driven development is fundamentally based on the ability to rapidly design new languages and tools in a unified and interoperable manner. We argue that existing technologies do not provide this capability, but a language engineering approach based on metamodelling can. The detailed study of metamodelling and how it can realise the Language-Driven Development vision will form the focus for the remainder of this book.

In software engineering circles the term "language driven development" is synonymous with "language oriented programming", a term which LtU members are more familiar with (thanks to Martin Ward's article Language Oriented Programming which first appeared in 1994, and then Martin Fowler's essays on the topic). The book hasn't appeared on the radar here on LtU, despite 41 citations. I suspect this is due in part to only one citation at Citeseer, and the lack of cross-talk between computer scientists and software engineers.

There are a lot of similarities between the XMF language (discussion at LtU) and that of the Katahdin language (discussion at LtU). Other related discussions here at LtU, include Language Workbenches: The Killer App for DSLs - about the essay by Martin Fowler, Ralph Johnson: Language workbenches - a response to Fowler's essay, XActium - Lightweight Language Engineering? - which discusses an essay about a previous version of XMF, Generating Interpreters? , Language Oriented Programming - discusses an essay by Jetbrain's Sergey Dmitriev, "Language Oriented Programming" Meta Programming System - discussion of the Jetbrain MPS system, The DSL, MDA, UML thing again... - an older discussion on the relationship between DSLs and MDA.

(Disclaimer: Some may notice that I am mentioned on the XMF web site, but this is just because I subjected their XMF language to a number of grueling challenges which they passed with flying colors: see the language snippets in the documentation. I have no affiliation with their company.)