1 / 54

Languages of the future:  mega the 701 st programming language

Languages of the future:  mega the 701 st programming language. Tim Sheard Portland State University (formerly from OGI/OHSU). What’s wrong with today’s languages?. The semantic gap What does the programmer know about the program? How is this expressed? The temporal gap

eddy
Download Presentation

Languages of the future:  mega the 701 st programming language

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Languages of the future:mega the 701st programming language Tim Sheard Portland State University (formerly from OGI/OHSU)

  2. What’s wrong with today’s languages? • The semantic gap • What does the programmer know about the program? How is this expressed? • The temporal gap • Systems are “configured” with new knowledge at many different times – compile-time, link-time, run-time. How is this expressed?

  3. What will languages of the future be like? • Support reasoning about a program from within the programming language. • Within the reach of most programmers – No Ph.D. required. • Support all of today’s capabilities but organize them in different ways. • Separate powerful but risky features from the rest of the program, spell out obligations needed to control the risk, ensure that obligations are met. • Provide a flexible hierarchy of temporal stages. Track important attributes across stages.

  4. How do we get there? • In small steps, I’m afraid . . . • Two small contributions • Putting the Curry-Howard isomorphism to work for regular programmers • Exploiting staged computation • In this talk, I’ll only talk about the first one

  5. Step 1- Putting Curry-Howard to work • Programming by manipulating proofs of important semantic properties • What is a proof? • How do we exploit proofs? •  is a new point in the design space somewhere between a • Programming language • A logic

  6. Isabelle Coq Elf NuPurl Alfa We need something in between to two extremes! Haskell Python O’Caml Pascal Java C++ C

  7. Dimensions Formal methods systems • Have too few formal systems users. We can’t solve the worlds problems with a handful of users. And, for the most part, the users are “thinkers” not “hackers” • The systems themselves are used to reason about systems, but aren’t designed to execute programs. For the most part, they don’t have rich libraries, I/O etc. • Have a steep learning curve. “It takes a Ph.D. to learn to effectively use these tools.”

  8. Steps between the “concrete” and the “clouds” • Train more users to use formal systems, or add formal features to lower level languages so existing programmers can use formal methods. • Design practical extensions for formal systems and build robust compilers for them, or add formal extensions to practical languages.

  9. Isabelle Coq Elf NuPurl Alpha Haskell Python O’Caml Pascal Java C++ C

  10. Curry Howard • Types are properties • Programs are proofs • A program with type T witness that there exists a program with type T. • If all we have is simple types – like Int or (Bool,String) or [Tree Bool], then the properties are too simple to think of them as very useful proofs.

  11. 0 is even 1 is odd, if 2 is even, if 3 is odd, if What is a proof? Am I odd or even? 3 • Requirements for a legal proof • Even is always stacked above odd • Odd is always stacked below even • The numeral decreases by one in each stack • Every stack ends with 0

  12. 0 is even 1 is odd 2 is even 3 is odd 1 – 1 = 0 2 – 1 = 1 3 – 1 = 2

  13. Algebraic Datatypes • Inductively formed structured data • Generalizes enumerations, records & tagged variants • data Color = Red | Blue | Green • data Address = A Number Street Town Province MailCode • data Person = Teacher [Class] | Student Major • Types are used to prevent the construction of ill-formed data. • Pattern matching allows abstract high level (yet still efficient) access

  14. ADT’s provide an abstract interface to heap data. We can define parametric polymorphic data • Data Tree a = Fork (Tree a) (Tree a) | Node a | Tip • Fork :: Tree a -> Tree a -> Tree a • Node :: a -> Tree a • Tip :: Tree a Inductivley defined data allows structures of unbounded size Functions defined with pattern matching Sum :: Tree Int -> Int Sum Tip = 0 Sum (Node x) = x Sum (Fork m n) = sum m + sum n Note the “data” declaration introduces values and functions that construct instances of the new type.

  15. Fork (Fork (Node 5) Tip) Tip Fork Fork Tip Node Tip 5

  16. ADT Type Restrictions • Data Tree a = Fork (Tree a) (Tree a) | Node a | Tip • Fork :: Tree a -> Tree a -> Tree a • Node :: a -> Tree a • Tip :: Tree a Restriction: the range of every constructor matches exactly the type being defined

  17. Z :: Even 0 O Z :: Odd 1 E(O Z):: Even 2 O(E(O z)) :: Odd 3 Integer Indexed Type-Constructors Z:: Even 0 E:: Odd m -> Even (m+1) O:: Even m -> Odd (m+1) O(E (O Z)) :: Odd (1+1+1+0) Note Even and Odd are type constructors indexed by integers

  18. Generalized Algebraic Data Structures • Like ADT • Remove the range-type restriction • Allow type constructors to be indexed by things other than normal types.

  19. The “kind” decl introduces new “types” • Allow algebraic definitions to define new “kinds” as well as new “data types” • Example of new type data List a = Nil | Cons a (List a) • Nil and Cons are new values. • They are classified by typeList • Nil :: [a] • Cons :: a -> List a -> List a • Example of new kind kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat • Zero and Succ are new types. • They are classified by the kind Nat • Zero :: Nat • Succ :: Nat ~> Nat • Succ Zero :: Nat

  20. *2 A hierarchy of values, types, kinds, sorts, … sorts *1 kinds * * ~> * Nat * Nat ~> Nat Int [ Int ] [ ] Zero types Succ 5 [5] values

  21. GADT in mega Zero and Succ encode the natural numbers at the type level kind Nat = Zero | Succ Nat data Even n = Z where n = Zero | ex m . E(Odd m) where n = Succ m data Odd n = ex m . O(Even m) where n = Succ m Even and Odd are proofs constructors

  22. Z :: Even 0 O Z :: Odd 1 E(O Z):: Even 2 O(E(O z)) :: Odd 3 Z:: Even Zero E:: Odd m -> Even (Succ m) O:: Even m -> Odd (Succ m) • Note the different ranges in Z, E and O • The types encode enforce the well formedness.

  23. Removing the restriction allows indexed types • The parameter of a type constructor (e.g. the “a” in “T a”) says something about the values with type “T a” • phantom types • indexed types • Consider an expression language: data Exp = Eint Int | Ebool Bool | Eplus Exp Exp | Eless Exp Exp | Eif Exp Exp Exp | Ex –- Int variable | Eb –- Bool variable • If b then 3 else x+1 • (Eif Eb • (Eint 3) • (Eplus Ex (Eint 1)) • But, what about terms like: • (Eif (Eint 3) • (Eint 0) • (Eint 9))

  24. Imagine a type-indexed Term datatype Note the different range types! Int :: Int -> Term Int Bool :: Bool -> Term Bool Plus :: Term Int -> Term Int -> Term Int Less :: Term Int -> Term Int -> Term Bool If :: Term Bool -> Term a -> Term a -> Term a X :: Term Int B :: Term Bool

  25. Type-indexed Data • Benefits • The type system disallows ill-formed Terms like: (If (Int 3) (Int 0) (Int 9)) • Documentation • With the right types, such objects act like proofs

  26. Why is (Term a) like a proof? • A value “x” of type “Term a” is like a judgment Γ├ x : a The type systems ensures that only valid judgments can be constructed. Having a value of type “Term a” guarantees (i.e. is a proof of) that the term is well typed. • If b then 3 else x+1 • (If B • (Int 3) • (Plus X • (Int 1)) Γ x = Int Γ b = Bool Γ ├ 1:Int Γ├ x:Int Γ ├ 3:Int Γ ├ x+1:Int Γ ├ b:Bool Γ├ if b then 3 else x+1 : Int

  27. Type-indexed Terms data Term a = Int Int where a=Int | Bool Bool where a=Bool | Plus (Term Int) (Term Int) where a=Int | Less (Term Int) (Term Int) where a=Bool | If (Term Bool) (Term a) (Term a) | X where a = Int | B where a = Bool Int :: forall a.(a=Int) => Int -> Term a We can specialize this kind of type to the ones we want Int :: Int -> Term Int Bool :: Bool -> Term Bool Plus :: Term Int -> Term Int -> Term Int Less :: Term Int -> Term Int -> Term Bool If :: Term Bool -> Term a -> Term a -> Term a X :: Term Int B :: Term Bool

  28. Problem – Type Checking How do we type pattern matching? case x of (Int n)::Term Int -> . . . (Bool b)::Term Bool -> . . . What type is x? Is it Term Int Or is it Term Bool

  29. Obligations and Asumptions data Term a = Int Int where a=Int | Bool Bool where a=Bool | . . . Using a Constructor incurs an Obligation (Int 3)::Term a{Show a=Int} (Bool true)::Term a{Show a=Bool} Pattern matching allows the system to make some Assumptions case x::Term a of (Int n)::Term Int ->{Assume a=Int}. . . (Bool b)::Term Bool ->{Assume a=Bool}. . .

  30. Programming eval :: Term a -> (Int,Bool) -> a eval (Int n) env = n eval (Bool b) env = b eval (Plus x y) env = eval x env + eval y env eval (Less x y) env = eval x env < eval y env eval (If x y z) env = if (eval x env) then (eval y env) else (eval z env) eval X (n,b) = n eval B (n,b) = b

  31. Type Checking eval :: Term a ->(Int,Bool) -> a eval (Less x y) env = {Assume a=Bool} eval x env < eval y env Less::(a=Bool)=>Term Int -> Term Int -> Term Bool x :: Term Int y :: Term Int (eval x) :: Int (eval y) :: Int (eval x < eval y) :: Bool Assume a=Bool in this context

  32. Basic approach • Data is a parameterized generalized-algebraic datatype • It is indexed by some semantic property • New Kinds introduce new types that are used as indexes • Programs use types to maintain semantic properties • We construct values that are proofs of these properties • The equality constrained types make it possible

  33. Constructing proofs at runtime • Suppose we want to read a string from the user, and interpret that string as an expression. • What if the user types in an expression of the wrong type? • Build a proof that the term is well typed for the context in which we use it

  34. data Exp = Eint Int | Ebool Bool | Eplus Exp Exp | Eless Exp Exp | Eif Exp Exp Exp | Ex | Eb test :: IO () test = do { text <- readln ; exp::Exp <- parse text ; case typCheck exp of Pair Rint x -> print (show (eval x + 2)) Pair Rbool y -> if (eval y) then print “True” else print “False" Fail -> error "Ill typed term" } A dynamic test of a static property!

  35. Representation Types data Rep t = Rint where t=Int | Rbool where t=Bool • “Rep” is a representation type. It is a normal first class value (at run-time) that represents a static (compile-time) type. • There is a 1-1 correspondence between Rint and Int, and Rbool and Bool. If x:: Rep t then • knowing the shape of x determines its type, • knowing its type determines its shape. • One can’t overemphasize the importance of this!

  36. Untyped Terms and Judgments data Exp = Eint Int | Ebool Bool | Eplus Exp Exp | Eless Exp Exp | Eif Exp Exp Exp | Ex | Eb data Judgment = Fail | exists t . Pair (Rep t) (Term t)

  37. Constructing a Proof typCheck :: Exp -> Judgment typCheck (Eint n) = Pair Rint (Int n) typCheck (Ebool b) = Pair Rbool (Bool b) typCheck Ex = Pair Rint X typCheck Eb = Pair Rbool B typCheck (Eplus x y) = case (typCheck x, typCheck y) of (Pair Rint a, Pair Rint b) -> Pair Rint (Plus a b) _ -> Fail

  38. More cases … typCheck (Eless x y) = case (typCheck x, typCheck y) of (Pair Rint a, Pair Rint b) -> Pair Rbool (Less a b) _ -> Fail typCheck (Eif x y z) = case (typCheck x, typCheck y, typCheck z) of (Pair Rbool a, Pair Rint b, Pair Rint c) -> Pair Rint (If a b c) (Pair Rbool a, Pair Rbool b, Pair Rbool c) -> Pair Rbool (If a b c) _ -> Fail

  39. Our Original Goals • Build heterogeneous meta-programming systems • Meta-language ≠ object-language • Type system of the meta-language guarantees semantic properties of object-language • Experiment with Omega • Finding new uses for the power of the type system • Translating existing language-based ideas into Omega • staged interpreters • proof carrying code • language-based security

  40. Serendipity • mega’s type system is good for statically guaranteeing all sorts of properties. • Lists with statically known length • Red–Black Trees • Binomial Heaps • Dynamic Typing • Proof Carrying Code

  41. Conclusion • Stating static properties is a good way to think about programming • It may lead to more reliable programs • The compiler should ensure that programs maintain the stated properties • Generalizing algebraic datatypes make it all possible • Ranges other than “T a” • “a” becomes an index describing a static property of x::T a • New kinds let “a” have arbitrary structure • Computing over “a” is sometimes necessary

  42. Contributions • “Logical Framework” ideas translated into everyday programming idioms. • Manipulating strongly-typed object languages in a semantics-preserving manner. • Implementation of Cheney and Hinze’s equality qualified types in a functional programming language. • Use of new kinds to build new kinds of index sets. • Representation (or Singleton) Types as a way to seamlessly switch between static and dynamic typing. • Demonstration • Show some practical techniques • Lots of examples • Resource: www.cs.pdx.edu/~sheard • Including Emir Pasalic’s Thesis.

  43. Related Work • Logical Frameworks: LF – Bob Harper et. Al • Refinement types – Frank Pfenning • Inductive Families • In type theory -- Peter Dybjer • Epigram -- Zhaohui Luo, James McKinna, Paul Callaghan, and Conor McBride • First-class phantom types -- Cheney and Hinze • Guarded Recursive Data Types • Hong Wei Xi and his students • Guarded Recursive Datatype Constructors • A Typeful Approach to Object-Oriented Programming with Multiple Inheritance • Meta-Programming through Typeful Code Representation • Constraint-based type inference for guarded algebraic data types -- Vincent Simonet and François Pottier • A Systematic Translation of Guarded Recursive Data Types to Existential Types -- Martin Sulzmann • Polymorphic typed defunctionalization -- Pottier and Gauthier. • Towards efficient, typed LR parsers -- Pottier and Régis-Gianas. • First Class Type Equality • A Lightweight Implementation of Generics and Dynamics -- Hinze and Cheney • Typing Dynamic Typing -- Baars and Swierstra • Type-safe cast: Functional pearl -- Wierich • Rogue-Sigma-Pi as a meta-language for LF -- Aaron Stump. • Wobbly types: type inference for generalised algebraic data types -- Peyton Jones, Washburn and Weirich • Cayenne - A Language with Dependent Types -- Lennart Augustsson

  44. Step 2 – Using Staging • Suppose you are writing a document retrieval system. • The user types in a query, and you want to retrieve all documents that meet the query. • The query contains information not known until run-time, but which is constant across all accesses in the document base. • E.g. Width – Indent < Depth && Keyword == “Naval”

  45. Width – Indent < Depth && Keyword == “Naval” • If Width and Indent are constant across all queries, But Depth and Keyword are fields of each document • How can we efficiently build an execution engine that translates the users query (typed as a String) into executable code?

  46. Code in Omega prompt> [| 5 + 5 |] [| 5 + 5 |] : Code Int prompt> run [| 5 + 5 |] 10 : Int prompt> let x = [| 23 |] X prompt> let y = [| 56 - $x |] Y prompt> y [| 56 - 23 |] : Code Int

  47. Dynamic values data Dyn x = Dint Int where x = Int | Dbool Bool where x = Bool | Dyn (Code x) dynamize :: Dyn a -> Code a dynamize (Dint n) = lift n dynamize (Dbool b) = lift b dynamize (Dyn x) = x

  48. translation trans :: Term a -> (Dyn Int,Dyn Int) -> Dyn a trans (Int n) (x,y) = Dint n trans (Bool b) (x,y) = Dbool b trans X (x,y) = x trans Y (x,y) = y trans (Plus a b) xy = case (trans a xy, trans b xy) of (Dint m,Dint n) -> Dint(m+n) (m,n) -> Dyn [| $(dynamize m) + $(dynamize n) |] trans (If a b c) xy = case trans a xy of (Dbool test) -> if test then trans b xy else trans c xy (Dyn test) -> Dyn[| if $test then $(dynamize (trans b xy)) else $(dynamize (trans c xy)) |]

  49. Applying the translation -- if 3 < 5 then (x + (5 + 2)) else y x1 = If (Less (Int 3) (Int 5)) (Plus X (Plus (Int 5) (Int 2))) Y w term = [| \ x y -> $(dynamize(trans term (Dyn [| x |],Dyn [| y |]))) |] -- w x1 -- [| \ x y -> x + 7 |] : Code (Int -> Int -> Int)

  50. Examples we have done • Typed, staged interpreters • For languages with binding, with patterns, algebraic datatypes • Type preserving transformations • Simplify :: Exp t -> Exp t • Cps:: Exp t -> Exp {trans t} • Proof carrying code • Data Structures • Red-Black trees, Binomial Heaps , Static length lists • Languages with security properties • Typed self-describing databases, where meta data in the database describes the database schema • Programs that slip easily between dynamic and statically typed sections. Type-case is easy to encode with no additional mechanism

More Related