Snell-Pym

There are a number of type systems out there in different programming languages. In fact, there's zillions, but they boil down to a few basic approaches.

(more...)

yawn

5:30am and I haven't slept a wink yet! I really need to sort out my lifestyle so I get (a) exercise and (b) time to think every day. Time to think is important for me; if I don't get enough, then when I go to bed, I lie there and think. Lots.

Tonights thoughts have included:

1. Some ideas about how whole-program transformations (eg, the macroexpander/partial evaluator and the OO system) in CHROME might be handled. The OO system needs to be a whole-program transformation rather than just some macros using the normal macroexpander since things like inheritance graphs and method lists for generic functions need to be accumulated together; most Lisps handle that with macros that destructively update data structures, but I'm trying to design a system without rampant mutation, so need a whole-program code walk to do this. Clearly, since we want to be able to write macros that produce generic functions, methods, and the like, we need to do this AFTER normal macro expansion, but before the compiler gets its hands on it.
2. Some ideas about separating the generic function/method system - the dispatch part of Lispy OO - from the classes-inheriting thing. Subtype relationships that are used to dispatch GFs should be doable with plain predicates - pair? my-record-type? etc. Or more complex predicate expressions on groups of arguments, so we can support multivariate typeclasses in the Haskell sense, as a rich interface/implementation system as well as a traditional records-with-single-inheritance class system. To do this properly we also need declarations that one predicate implies another - (number? x) -> (integer? x) - so that a method on numbers will be used for integers, yet a more specific integer method can override it. I'm not sure how decidable the "most specific method wins" thing can be with complex multivariate type predicates, though. Must experiment and ask knowledgeable formal logic folks.
3. Thoughts about future computer architectures. The drive is for more speed, but these days, most CPUs are idle waiting for memory to feed them code and data, or (much more often) for the disk, network, or user to feed them. The only places where the CPU maxes out tend to be highly parallelisable tasks - server stuff handling lots of requests at once, games and other audiovisual things, and scientific number crunching. This suggests to me that a future direction of growth would be one or more high-bang-per-buck MISC processors embedded directly into SRAM chips (sort of like a CPU with an onboard cache... but the other way around, since the CPU would be much smaller than the SRAM array) which are bonded to the same chip carrier module as a set of DRAMs. One or more of CPU-and-SRAM and some DRAM chips are then all designed together as a tightly-coupled integrated unit for maximum speed due to short traces and the lack of standardised modular interfaces between them (like DIMMs and CPU socket standards) meaning that the interface can evolve rapidly. The whole CPU+SRAM+DRAM unit is then pluggable into a standardised socket, which motherboards will have several of. The result? Lots of cores of low power consumption reasonably fast CPU with high speed access to high speed memory. And for those demanding games/media/scientific tasks? The higher-end modules will have FPGAs on as well...
4. Forget nasty complex unpredictable memory caches: have a nonuniform physical address space (with regions of memory of varying speed) and let the OS use the virtual memory system to allocate pages to regions based upon application hints and/or access statistics. Not having cache tag and management facilities makes for more chip area to put actual memory in.
5. We've been wondering about getting goats lately. Goats are useful creatures; they produce milk (which can be turned into cheese) and they produce decent wool (just not in the quantities sheep produce it). Their milk and cheese don't make Sarah ill the way cow-derived versions do. Plus, we need something to come and graze our paddock. We've been doing a little bit of research and apparently two goats would be about right for the space we have. We'd need to put an inner layer of fence around the paddock to keep them in while still allowing the public footpath, and we'd need a little shed for them to shelter in. But thinking about setting things up in the paddock, I'm now wondering if it would be a good idea to build a duck run in there too, down at the bottom by the stream, all securely fenced against foxes and mink and with a duck-house up on stilts in case of flooding, but with a little pond dug out for them (connected to the stream by a channel with a grille over it to prevent escapage). It would be a convenient place to have the ducks, and it would make a good home for them, I think.

It's now 6am. Do I try and go to sleep, or try and last the day out? Hmmm...

I'm reading Thinking Forth, which has conveniently been made available as a PDF for free reading, and a reference therein to the ability of languages with metaprogramming facilities to represent things that, in other languages, might need to be part of the language core as user libraries:

Nevertheless a brilliantly simple technique for adding Modula-type modules to Forth has been implemented, in only three lines of code, by Dewey Val Shorre

(more...)

One of the things I don't like about Scheme is that just about everything in it is mutable. The most awkward ones are the value bindings of symbols.

You see, when a Scheme implementation (compiler or interpreter) is processing some source code, at any point in the program it is aware of the current lexical environment - the set of names bound at that point in the program, and what they're bound to.

(more...)

Back when I was a kid, I designed a low-level macro system for purely functional Lispy languages, based around a cunning use of partial evaluation. I called it meta.

Since I was a dreadfully lazy student, when I had to do a final year project, I suggested it as an idea and then pretended to think of and develop it all over again, before spending far too little time writing up a report on it, and a sample implementation. Which may have been why the sample implementation broke in the demonstration...

But at the time, I didn't think much of macro hygiene. All I'd seen of it was that Scheme at the time had a hygienic macro system called syntax-rules that, as far as I could tell, sucked - it was limited to basic-seeming rule-based substitutions, and did not use the full power of the Scheme language as a macro language.

However, things have changed since then. The Scheme community has come up with hygienic macro systems that let you write macros in Scheme, such as syntactic closures. And so I've found that hygiene is a desirable property, rather than a terrible design tradeoff.

So, I wonder to myself, can my meta macro system be brought up to date and incorporate hygiene?

(more...)