Is anyone aware of concrete term rewriting systems in a form of computer languages? It seems to me as a very promising area as a programming paradigm, yet there is no sign of it as far as I have searched the web. There is no sign of it even on wiki page of programming paradigms, even generally. Are we looking at yet unrevealed area of programming? By my personal opinion, term rewriting might be a way humans think at some higher abstraction level, above all the neural networks native to the human brain. Term rewriting essence seems so natural to me as a thinking framework for solving math, physics, chemistry or logic problems, that I'm surprised there are no implementations of it in a form of programming languages.
Does anyone know of any implementation? And should term rewriting be accepted as a different programming paradigm?
At this year's SPLASH there will be a follow-up to last year's NOOL 2015 workshop (discussed here on LtU). Objects may not be the trendiest thing in PL circles, but I think they have a bright future. (Example: session types are essentially concurrent objects in disguise, and they are quite trendy.)
Please consider submitting! (Disclaimer: I'm one of the organisers :)
@nntaleb tweeted a table from his Antifragility book listing several instances of academics claiming ideas that actually originated in industry had an academic origin.
I'm curious about the Wiener/Cybernetics example - the dates don't seem to work. I'm also curious about examples and nonexamples of "lecturing birds how to fly", ie. cases where this misappropriation has happened and also places where there is the belief that ideas originated in industry but in fact came from academia.
To those of you with math backgrounds....
A random conversation, about math and machine learning, led me to wondering - LISP & lambda calculus aside - is it reasonable to view programming languages as mathematical representations?
After all - a program represents a set of logical/mathematical relationships - be it descriptive, a model, or a series of operations - not unlike the way a set of differential equations can model a physical system (and be used to predict behavior).
Are there fundamental differences, beyond the symbology and grammars, that differentiate a set of equations from a program?
I ask this partly out of intellectual curiosity, and partly because, when it comes to analyzing and modeling systems, my mind tends to think in terms of code, rather than formulas - and I kind of wonder if there's really something fundamentally different about the thought process, or is it more akin to the difference between, say, differential and integral forms?
hi, I was re-reading an LtU blast from the past about FRP and the discussions there made me think to ask this here community to post some concise updates on how FRP research has been going of late. In case any of you in that field have so much free time.
My idea here is to introduce a place to discuss ideas about handling memory exhaustion, or related resource limit management. The goal is to have something interesting and useful to talk about, informing future designs of programming language semantics or implementation. Thoughtful new solutions are more on topic than anecdotes about old problems. (Feel free to tell an anecdote if followed by analysis of a workable nice solution.) Funny failure stories are not very useful.
Worst case scenarios are also of interest: situations that would very hard to handle nicely, as test cases for evaluating planned solutions. For example, you might be able to think of an app that would behave badly under a given resource management regime. This resembles thinking of counter examples, but with emphasis on pathology instead of contradiction.
In another discussion topic, Keean Schupke argued the idea failure due to out-of-memory is an effect, while others suggested it was semantically more out-of-scope than an effect in some languages. I am less interested in what is an effect, and more interested in how to handle problems. (The concept is on topic, when focus is what to do about it. Definitions without use cases seem adrift of practical concerns.)
Relevant questions include: After partial failure, what does code still running do about it? How is it presented semantically? Can failed things be cleaned up without poisoning the survivors afterward? How are monitoring, cleanup, and recovery done efficiently with predictable quality? How do PL semantics help a dev plan and organize system behavior after resource failures, especially memory?
Looking for references on the expressiveness and computational completeness of a relational programming language
The basic operations of a relational query language are equivalent to first order predicate calculus, which means they fall short of being computationally complete. This applies equally to modern SQL excluding SQL/PSM (which adds a procedural language) as it did to Codd's original proposals.
I have created a language Andl which implements the relational algebra augmented by (a) the ability to compute new values that are not in any relation (b) ad hoc aggregation functions (c) ordered queries (like SQL windowing) and (d) recursive fixpoint queries (equivalent to transitive closure or SQL Recursive Common Table Expressions.
I speculate that without any explicit looping or branching constructs, and based on relations as the only holder of state, that this language is Turing Complete. At any event it is capable of a surprising range of interesting computations (such as a Sudoku solver).
I am looking for references or theoretical work, or other implementations, to pursue this question.
I have groups of functions that get called with the exact same arguments:
a = func_a(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5); b = func_b(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5); c = func_c(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5);
To reduce duplication, I have a helper function that accepts any number of arguments and returns a second helper function. When called, this second function applies the arguments it was constructed with to other functions:
bar = foo(arg1, arg2, arg3, arg4, arg5); a = bar(func_a); b = bar(func_b); c = bar(func_c);
My question is, what's the best name for "foo" in this second example? I've looked for higher-order functions in various languages but I'm having trouble finding examples of my specific usage--there are similar functions but nothing exactly the same. I'm hoping to find a canonical name for what I'm doing (if one exists).
Like partial, foo() fixes the given arguments but it doesn't bind them to a specific function. The best name I can come up with is enclose() or callwith(). If anyone know of an already-existing name for this, I'd like to hear what it is.
I'm at present working on a thing which isn't really a programming language, because it's to be used by a thing which isn't really a programmer.
This is part of a machine learning project. Each 'program' is a genome which is operated on by a genetic algorithm. The genetic algorithm of course is the aforementioned blind uncomprehending idiot that has no idea how programs work. It combines and mutates genomes at random; the fact that these genomes code for programs is irrelevant to it.
The PL challenge is to build a programming language (genome encoding) that has the evolvable properties that will enable a GA to make progress. Ordinary programming languages (Koza's work with LISP included) are extraordinarily poorly suited to evolutionary methods.
What is required for evolvability:
First, small changes in the program (usually) make small changes in semantic behavior;
Second, combining elements of different programs results in a new one that's reasonably likely to have semantics similar to both (or all) parents, although there must be a chance that it does something completely different and unexpected instead.
Third, the genetic encoding must support the production of programs that are arbitrarily short or long, arbitrarily simple or complex, and must be able to get there mostly in 'baby steps.'
Fourth, there must be significant retention and potential recombination of structure even when that structure does not semantically affect the current program. (non-coding or 'junk' DNA, alias 'introns', is a reservoir of potentials that may be invoked in the case of mutations and usually code for something that's useful when that particular mutation happens.
Fifth, absolutely random genomes must make a program that has a definite semantics - any runtime or compile error is instantly lethal to that genome.
Sixth, tree representations with branch-swap combination operations are largely considered to be a failed experiment at this point, because they sort of failed many of the evolvability criteria given above. Most combinations did not express anything close to the semantics of any parent, and mutations weren't usually 'small' changes as measured in semantics. There wasn't much of a 'smooth gradient' that genetic algorithms could climb. So, it's time to build something else.
Our blind uncomprehending idiot is attempting to debug the code. It has lots of patience and lots of energy, but absolutely no clue how the genomes are related to semantics; it just has a 'combination' operator and a 'mutation' operator and gets fed 'solution effectiveness' information that it uses to determine which genomes to favor or disfavor.
Now, what kind of programming language should the blind uncomprehending idiot use? Remember that readability, syntactic cleanliness, intuitive design, etc, score absolutely zero here. The programmer can't read, has no idea what syntax is, and has no 'intuition' as such. Its efforts to debug mostly amount to slicing programs at random places and in random directions and sticking them together with bits it sliced from other genomes.
I've managed to build a 'language' that seems to have good evolvable properties for GAs and specifies neural networks. It is, however, horrifying to human sensibilities.
The genomes are metaprograms; A path through them is traversed (each state contains a 'next state' pointer) and any 'output bits' stored at states along the path are output in sequence and become part of the input to the neural network builder. So the genome works something like a funge, and the output of running the funge is a linear program.
The 'structure' results from the path taken through the genome funge. The path is specified by the "next operation" addresses in each node. If part of a path is particularly important then 'introns' can arise to protect it from minor mutations. Such introns would take the form of next-instruction pointers in nodes near the path node, pointing back onto the path. Mutations to instruction pointers usually change the destinations by a small distance in funge-space so the idea of introns in nodes that are 'near' the path makes sense.
I've been pretty careful with the format of the bit strings accepted by the neural network builder, and no catenation of output messages results in an outright error. It might result in a completely useless network, but never an error. And Artificial neural networks are fairly forgiving in terms of retaining most of their functionality when a few nodes here and there are changed or missing or when a few new ones appear, so this
I think it would be possible to use the same funge-ish mechanism to create output strings that are read as other kinds of program as well, with a different kind of 'interpreter' than the one that builds neural networks. But my confidence is less, because most other kinds of 'program' are far less forgiving of minor structural changes. If you were doing any semantics other than constructing neural networks, how would you do it?
A quote from John Carmack on Inlined Code. I'm interested in hearing more about that style of programming, and any programming language that facilitates that style.
Active forum topics
New forum topics