Scoping generic functions (by alaric)

So, my favourite model of object-oriented programming is "Generic Functions".

The idea is that, rather than the more widespread notion of "class-based object orientation" where methods are defined "inside" a class, the definition of types and the definition of methods on those types are kept separate. In practice, this means three different kinds of definitions:

1. Defining types, which may well be class-like "record types with inheritance" and rules about what fields can be read/written in what scopes and all that, but could be any kind of type system as long as it defines some sort of "Is this an instance of this type?" relationship, possibly allowing subtyping (an object may be an instance of more than one type, but there's a "subtype" relationship between types that forms a lattice where any graph of types joined by subtype relationships has a single member that is not a subtype of any other member").
2. Defining generic functions, by providing the structure of the argument list (but not the types of the arguments, although in systems with subtyping, there may be requirements made that some arguments' types are subtypes of some parent type) and the type of the return value and binding that to a name.
3. Defining methods on a generic function, which are a mapping from a set of actual argument types to an implementation of the function, for a given generic function.

Note that the method refers to the type and the generic function, and is the only thing that "binds them together". Unlike in class-based OO, the definition of the type does not need to list all the operations available on that type. For instance, one module might define a "display something on the screen" generic function taking a thing and a display context as arguments; this module might be part of a user interface toolkit library. Another module might define a type for an address book entry, with a person or organisation's name and contact details. And then a third module might provide an implementation of the display-on-screen generic function for those address book entries. All three modules might well be written by different people, and only the third module needs to be aware that both the other modules exist; their authors might never hear of each other.

This is good for programmers, in my opinion, as it makes it easier to build systems out of separately-designed parts; it exhibits what is sometimes called "loose coupling". In a class-based system, the author of the address book type would either need to be aware of the user-interface toolkit and make sure their address book entry class also implemented the "display on a screen" interface and declare an implementation of the UI logic (which might not be their interest, especially if there's a large number of UI toolkits to choose from), or users of the address book class in combination with that UI toolkit would need to do the tiresome work of writing "wrapper classes" that contain an address book entry as an instance member, and then implement the display on a screen interface, and have to wrap/unwrap address book entries as they move in and out of user-interfacing parts of the application.

"Ah, but what if the user inherits from the address book entry class and implements the display-on-screen interface in their subclass?", you might say, but that's only a partial solution: sure, it gives you objects that are address book entries AND can be displayed on screen, but only if you explicitly construct an instance of that class rather than the generic address-book entry class - and third party code (such as parts of the address book library itself) wouldn't know to do that. Working around this with dependency injection frameworks is tedious, and success relies on every third-party component author bothering to use a DI framework instead of just instantiating classes in the way the language encourages them to do. An ugly solution, when generic functions solve the problem elegantly.

It also provides a natural model for multiple dispatch. Class-based "methods within classes" mean that every method is owned by one class, and methods are invoked on one object. In our address book UI example, the generic function to display things on screens accepts two arguments - the thing to display and a display context. In a class-based system, this means that the display method defined on our address book entry is passed a display context argument and can invoke operations on it defined by the display context class/interface/type, and if it wants different behaviour for displaying on a colour versus monochrome screen (remember them?) it needs to make that a runtime decision. However, in a generic function system, there would be separate subtypes of "display context" for "monochrome" and "colour", each defining different interfaces for controlling colours. This means you can provide separate methods on the display GF for an address book entry in colour or monochrome or, if you didn't need to worry about colour as you just displayed text in the default style, have a single implementation in terms of the generic "display context" supertype.

This feature is particularly welcome for people writing arithmetic libraries, who want to define multiplication between scalar and matrix, matrix and scalar, matrix and vector, vector and matrix, vector and scalar, scalar and vector, etc.

You can use run-time type information to implement all of this in a single-dispatch system, but (a) it's tedious typing (in both sense of the word) for the programmer, (b) it is not extensible (if somebody writes a "multiply" method in the "Matrix" class that knows to look for its argument being a scalar, vector, or other matrix, what is the author of a third-party "Quaternion" class to do to allow a Matrix to be multipled by a Quaternion?), (c) this robs the compiler of the opportunity to do really fancy optimisations it can do when it knows that this is a polymorphic generic function dispatch.

However, generic functions present a big problem for me, as an aspiring functional programming language author: scoping.

Read more »

Electronics Projects (by alaric)

So, my electronics workbench is a mess.

This is abundantly clear in the picture from my blog post on redesigning my workspace; the awkward layout is certainly part of the problem, but a deeper problem is that I don't do many electronics projects. So this big workbench is rarely used for its intended purpose, and thus accumulates junk, and thus isn't very inviting to start projects at, which adds to the fact that I'm a bit edgy about STARTING electronics projects, and a vicious cycle has set in...

The only electronic projects I did lately were the 12 volt DC power distribution system for the van and a 9:1 impedance transformer, but those were mainly mechanical builds; the electronics were trivial.

Read more »

Insulating the Workshop Roof (by alaric)

I work from home, in my workshop at the end of the garden. I have my rocket mass heater to warm it in the winter, but while the radiant heat from the primary heat exchanger is comfortable, as soon as the fire burns down it's freezing again, because the room's air temperature doesn't really rise.

Also, in summer, I roast in here; the sun beats straight down on the dark felt roof above, and my ceiling is just four layers of felt and a couple of centimetres of plywood, so on sunny days the wood above me reaches 40-50 degrees Celcius and roasts me with infra-red radiation.

BUT NO MORE!

Because over this past summer, I've finished insulating the roof. I did this by getting inch-thick foil-backed foam boards and fixing them between the joists, with twenty centimetres of woolly insulation above that. Here's a few photos to illustrate what I mean, taken when I tested the method at the end of last year:

There's a gap of about five centimetres above the woolly stuff, to allow air to flow. A big danger of sealing a roof up with insulation is that warm, humid air from the room beneath will manage to sneak up, past the insulation, reach the cold area above, and promptly condense, making it nasty and dump up there - leading to the roof rotting. So I left an air gap, and made sure that every area of the roof was ventilated. Since the roof is punctuated by wooden beams, this meant putting an air vent at the top and bottom of each "bay". In the summer, the air rising out of the vents at the upper end of the roof was pretty hot, too, so convection of air along the underside of the hot roof also helps to get rid of heat in the summer.

Thankfully, this meant that I wasn't roasted during the summer; and now I've mainly finished running aluminium tape over all the edges, so my warm air doesn't seep up and dissappear, it's also keeping the heat much better in winter. I've been running the rocket mass heater in the mornings and the room temperature has risen and stayed up for most of the day, thanks to the residual heat from the secondary heat exchanger now being enough to replace heat lost to the outside.

Also, it seems the aluminium tape makes a good electrical contact with the aluminium backing on the foam board, so my entire ceiling is a big radio-frequency reflector, which might prove useful in keeping all the noise-leaking computers in my workshop separate from any antennas I put on the roof...

Amateur Radio Law (by alaric)

The radio spectrum is heavily regulated worldwide. This is because some uses of radio are matters of life and death - communications between ambulances and fire engines, air traffic control, radio navigation, GPS, distress calls from ships, military operations, aircraft/shipping radar, that sort of thing. It's easy to interfere with radio services by just happening to transmit radio waves at the frequency they're using - even accidentally, by a tuning mistake or a poor-quality transmitter that leaks energy at random frequencies - so there's a bunch of laws regulating radio transmitters in every country.

Basically, they trade off various freedoms. Operating a radio transmitter can generally be done using one of three legal approaches:

Read more »

Command Line Interfaces (by alaric)

Yesterday I saw this thread on Twitter by @thingskatedid about Kitty, a featureful terminal emulator.

I use the terminal a lot. My normal working environment is:

• herbstluftwm
• emacs
• firefox
• thunderbird
• Lots and lots of terminal windows

Up until now, I'd been using alacritty as my terminal of choice, after frustrations with getting xterm to do unicode properly, but I've moved over to kitty now - as far as I can tell it's a superset of alacritty, at least for features I actually use.

So, why was I excited about kitty? Having proper graphics in the shell is a tiny step closer towards what I'd really like to have, but perhaps as far as can be done without ripping up a whole lot more infrastructure... Let me explain.

Read more »