|
CS 334
Programming Languages
Spring 2002
Lecture 25
|
The language should be easy to master
- bad ex: PL/I & Ada - don't throw in kitchen sink!
If too complex, danger of unexpected interactions, subsetting & (if
redundant) development of dialects.
Simple conceptual model of semantics.
Can go too far! E.g., Basic, LISP syntax.
"Everything should be as simple as possible, but not simpler" Einstein
Similar syntax => similar semantics.
Bad example: subscript vs fcn def in FORTRAN.
Good example: Instance vble vs parameterless function in Eiffel
Easy to express programs. E.g. support for abstraction.
Success depends on appl.
few basic features - free from interactions. No special restrictions.
Ex. of probs w/ Pascal: Fcn can only return simple type, constants only
defined for built-in basic types, enumerated types cannot be read or
written, etc.
Algol 68 carries to extremes, everything has value.
Smalltalk, Eiffel, other pure object-oriented languages do it well.
Formal grammar, formal semantics helpful but also need well-written manual.
Original presentation usually too vague. Refined.
ALGOL 68 problem w/ redefining terms.
Hoare considered more important than writeability
self-documenting,
commenting conventions: line vs stream oriented.
descriptive identifier names,
blocking of compound statements - if, fi versus begin, end
two-dimensional syntax, syntax directed editors.
COBOL not easier to read.
APL - write-only.
Syntactic and logical (semantic) errors discouraged & easily
discovered.
Related to writeability, readability, and modifiability.
Separate (but not independent) compilation
Minor modifications should not require major changes.
Begin-end or {,} probs.
problems: Ada out params, Pascal variant records, side-effects.
Diagnostic vs. optimizing compilers?
Practical Considerations in language choice
"A language that is simple to parse for the compiler is also simple to
parse for the human programmer, and that can only be an asset." Wirth
So people will use it.
hard to achieve completely.
Hoare discusses difference between designing a programming language and
programming language features.
Work on 1 at a time - in familiar context.
Make sure solves problem, without causing new ones.
Show simply and efficiently implemented.
Carefully specify semantics
Use in lots of examples
Know lots of alternatives.
Watch for inconsistencies, interactions.
(Knuth article on remaining problems in Algol 60: interactions major
theme,
e.g. side effects and order of evaluation, unexpected exit from control
structure, aliasing - 2 diff. ways of referring to vble, integers also
labels)
Be especially wary of new features
Be ready to make modifications to solve minor problems.
Know intended applications, allowable size and complexity.
Implement on several machines, write manuals and texts
Be prepared to sell it to customers
Don't include untried ideas - consolidation, not innovation.
Make design group as small as possible.
Don't be afraid to revise - once distributed, too hard to change.
Simplicity is really the key - avoid complexity. Too many "solutions" make
language hard to understand.
(See also Hoare, "The emperor's old clothes", CACM, Feb., 1981, pp. 75-83.)
Base programming language on:
- a minimum number of independent concepts combined in a uniform manner.
- a comprehensive definition mechanism to provide the breadth.
- a small core language on which the extensions are based.
- a syntax chosen for its readability.
Most dangerous approach to problems: add new features
Trap PL/I, Ada, and now C++ fell into.
- Abstraction: Avoid requiring something to be stated more than
once; factor out the recurring pattern.
- Automation: Automate mechanical, tedious, or error-prone
activities. (Provide higher level features - e.g. DO loop)
- Defense in Depth: If an error gets through one line of defense,
then it should be caught by the next line of defense. (e.g. if incorrect
but syntactically ok, then should fail type-checking - DO, varieties of
GOTO in FORTRAN)
- Information Hiding: Modules should be designed so that: (1)
The user has all the information needed to use the module correctly, and
nothing more. (2) The implementor has all the information needed to
implement the module correctly, and nothing more.
- Labeling: We should not require the user to know the absolute
position of an item in a list. Instead, we should associate labels with
any position that must be referenced elsewhere. (E.g., labelled case as
opposed to unlabelled)
- Localized Cost: A user should only pay for what he uses; avoid
distributed costs. (Don't build in so much generality that simple things
expensive, e.g ALGOL DO, default param's)
- Manifest Interface: All interfaces must be apparent (manifest)
in the syntax. (Clear how to use, no side-effects)
- Orthogonality: Independent functions should be controlled by
independent mechanisms. (Avoid dependencies -e.g. logic and control).
- Portability: Avoid features or facilities that are dependent
on a particular machine or a small class of machines.
- Preservation of Information: The language should allow the
representation of information that the user knows and that the compiler
will need. (E.g. DO loops, subrange types - make it easier to optimize.)
- Regularity: Regular rules, without exceptions, are easier to
learn, use, describe, and implement.
- Security: No program that violates the definition of the
language, or its own intended structure, should escape detection.
- Simplicity: A language should be as simple as possible. There
should be a minimum number of concepts with simple rules for their
combination.
- Structure: The static structure of a program should correspond
in a simple way with the dynamic structure of the corresponding
computations.
- Syntactic Consistency: Things which look similar should be
similar and things which look different should be different.
- Zero-One-Infinity: The only reasonable numbers in programming
language design are zero, one, and infinity. (Avoid special cases, E.g.
compound commands in Pascal.)
Originally survey of programming languages: COBOL, FORTRAN, PL/I, LISP,
APL, SNOBOL, etc. (languages for jobs course!).
Get better understanding of principle features of programming languages.
Explore design space of programming languages.
Introduce different ways of thinking about programming reflected by
different programming language paradigms.
The one thing you can count on is change! You need to be able to evaluate
new languages for their suitability for the desired purpose and to
understand the parameters of the design space and why different choices
make sense.
What have we done?
- Syntax (formal) and semantics (informal and formal) of common
programming language concepts.
Structure of compilers / interpreters. Importance of binding time.
Variables: static vs. dynamic scoping, lifetime of variables, l-values vs.
r-values.
- Run-time structure of programming languages. Allocation of storage at
run-time. Parameter passing mechanisms. Storage reclamation (explicit -
under programmer control, automatic - garbage collection and reference
counting).
- Types in programming languages. Available types and their
representation. Type structures in important representative languages.
- Issues in type-checking: Static vs. dynamic type-checking. Type
compatibility (structural vs. name equivalence). Holes in type systems
(e.g. variant records). Problems with pointers.
- Abstract data types and representation in programming languages.
- Expressions: Order of evaluation (including short-circuit
evaluation), functions, and side-effects
- Control structures (including exception handling).
- Polymorphism - implicit and explicit.
- Programming in the large: Support from languages (information hiding,
encapsulation, separate but not independent compilation, explicit importing
and exporting of environments.)
- Programming language paradigms:
- Imperative: Assignment statements (incl. order of evaluation,
side-effects, and aliasing) and control structures. Iterators.
Procedures, coroutines.
- Functional: Expanded expression constructs. Pattern matching and
type inference. Higher-order functions. Lazy vs. eager languages.
Recursively defined types. Implementation issues (efficiency and
possibility of implementation on highly-parallel computers). Program
verification. ML as an example.
- Object-oriented: Origins in object-based languages supporting ADT's.
Key features: objects and classes, message passing & dynamic method
invocation, subclasses and inheritance, subtyping, etc. Support for
abstractions and information-hiding. Object-oriented view of algorithms.
Support for incremental modification through inheritance and subclasses.
Difference between subtyping and inheritance. Type-checking problems in
popular languages. Complications in semantics of inheritance. Loss of
locality in inheritance.
- Concurrency: Semaphores, monitors, CSP, and message passing.
- Semantics: Operational, Axiomatic, and denotational semantics.
- Evolution of programming languages. Problems which led to
introduction of new constructs.
- Criteria for language design: Writeability, readability, reliability,
efficiency considerations, portability. How to design features and
languages. How to choose a language.
Graduate level course would be more formal and have less emphasis on
learning individual languages. (Either operational or denotational
semantics.)
Hope have better understanding of options open to programmer. How language
can support programmer (as well as awareness of traps). Different
paradigms represent different ways of thinking about programming (don't
expect to have become expert programmers in languages taught).
Back to:
kim@cs.williams.edu