archive-org.com » ORG » A » ALARMINGDEVELOPMENT.ORG

Total: 134

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Incompleteness
    thought that post states could not be modified within a coaction If so how is z z possible Isn t a progression precisely in existence to support Luke s example a b b c c a i e BoundedAction Action task do prog a b c a b b c c a translates into imperative block structured programming language var a b var b c var c a In which case it is not the case that execution order is non deterministic Unless I am missing Luke s point Looking back part of my and Luke s may be due to the clumsy syntax in the paper to be fair at the time I read the paper I thought the syntax was clean Jonathan Edwards Posted December 8 2009 at 8 41 pm Permalink Yes the syntax in the paper was not fully worked out I have since defined a precise language and semantics The counterexamples I have been using are actually sugared forms of that formal syntax I can t really explain the details here John Z Bo Zabroski Posted December 9 2009 at 10 36 am Permalink It s ok I get it now John Z Bo Zabroski Posted December 9 2009 at 2 08 pm Permalink Could you use shape analysis to detect cycles and then offer the programmer a number of progressions as an alternative just throwing ideas out there The idea is that rather than making the programmer do a static declaration they CHOOSE a static declaration In this way the programmer is forced to come up with an abstraction to resolve any programming problems that match Pontus Johnson s n body problem modeling expressiveness challenge I m not sure I get the read write barriers approach That s also why I don t see why it fails Jules Posted December 9 2009 at 5 26 pm Permalink Why do you have derivation and reaction If some value derives like x f a b couldn t you achieve the same effect by setting a reaction on a and b that sets x to f a b Jonathan Edwards Posted December 9 2009 at 6 10 pm Permalink Jules that is a good question The best answer is that I am not sure anymore Derivation is lazy and purely functional and is the normal semantics of getters whereas reaction is a semantics for setters But my recent work formalizing coherence does suggest that I could use if for getters also So I would say the issue of derivation is up in the air at the moment in my mind I am going to see how far I can get with a purely reactive semantics before considering whether to add derivation back in Sean McDirmid Posted December 9 2009 at 7 46 pm Permalink Just a whacky thought embrace the incompleteness Maybe you should check out the implementation of a physics engine which is all about dealing with coherence in an approximate rather than perfect way In

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=351 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive


  • NEPLS slides up
    It should only be a linear cost to check such a plan at run time and then fall back to the inefficient search when the plan fails I agree that it seems there ought to be a lot of relevant research but I am not finding a lot of it Yang Zhang Posted December 3 2009 at 2 43 pm Permalink I just wanted to say again that your talk and your idea are both very nice One clarification question what s the difference between this programming model and a reactive programming system that also supports bidirectional binding Is the key benefit an efficiency one since in a reactive system each bound expression is re evaluated on each change to a dependency whereas here the dependency graph is effectively topologically sorted before executing it Jonathan Edwards Posted December 3 2009 at 8 02 pm Permalink Thanks Yang Do you mean the data binding frameworks in common GUI and web frameworks I am replacing data binding with a more general language feature The benefit is primarily simplicity and flexibility Data binding frameworks work mostly on the special case of a single layer of links between special View and Model classes and have special purpose hooks for doing transformation and validation GUI frameworks generally have no ability to synchronize multiple changes together whereas web frameworks do so with special purpose phases I want to allow you to build change propagation graphs of any shape over any objects involving any computation and without worrying about synchronization Hope that answers your question Hans Posted December 4 2009 at 5 34 pm Permalink Great slides easy to understand and to follow I also have some questions What is the reason for having the following statement length end start I understand the apostrophe is for post state but is it also possible to have several post states i e length If so could the length end start be rewritten as length end start to express it more clearly or would that break functionality If so why Since the post post state would have a pre state of the previous post state If this is true can this rewrite made implicit I e length end start would be rewritten as length end start by using dependency trees Did you consider dependency trees A dependency tree for start 4 end start 5 length end start would be start end start length start end such that one only has to sort the tree to determine execution order This can be done at compile time and thus reducing the search problem at run time Dependency can be determined by lexical analysis and the tree can be build using For all statements add the statement at the root of the tree iff it has no dependencies and remove it from the statement list For all statement in the statement list and for all dependencies is the dependency already somewhere in the tree If this holds for all dependencies remove the statement

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=348 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • NEPLS submission
    November 15 2009 at 8 28 pm Permalink The abstract reads very well although unfortunately I don t know enough about the topic to evaluate the idea itself The point about pointers is interesting and well made You ll be in good FRP company with Shriram Krishnamurthi and Paul Hudak so good luck Overall I prefer the tone and style of this to what I read in the earlier Coherence paper It s more coherent John Z Bo Zabroski Posted November 16 2009 at 9 58 am Permalink Does NEPLS cost anything to attend and do you have to present research to attend or can you just hang back drink the kool aid and learn what people are working on John Z Bo Zabroski Posted November 16 2009 at 10 02 am Permalink ick I can t read To answer the most frequently asked questions the events are free of cost and they are open to all Not sure why this wasn t at the top of the page Justin Bailey Posted November 16 2009 at 4 10 pm Permalink I have to agree with Roly this abstract makes the concept very clear I hope to see your calculus some day Not sure how difficult the proof will be but have you tried showing it is undecidable That might be simpler and then you know you don t need to search for a proof John Z Bo Zabroski Posted November 16 2009 at 6 01 pm Permalink Undecidability has to due with pointer aliasing Finding a program sequence that is the same as if its source text was directly executed is a different challenge Completeness refers to the idea that the programming language should always be able to find a correct program ordering at run time if one exists given

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=345 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • OOPSLA report
    like the death of OOPSLA if the shrinking attendance didn t mean that already Jonathan Edwards Posted November 2 2009 at 8 17 am Permalink You are exactly right that programming language design is not considered a respectable topic in PL research But SIGSOFT Like the FSE conference Macneil Posted November 3 2009 at 10 45 am Permalink Yes you should consider ICSE and FSE as venues Jonathan Edwards Posted November 4 2009 at 3 43 pm Permalink Thanks for the suggestion I was under the impression that language design papers were even less welcome at ICSE or FSE Can t think of any recently can you John Z Bo Zabroski Posted November 4 2009 at 4 11 pm Permalink Closest examples would be Marc Harman s work on aspect based approaches to simplifying the internal complexity of models This is not really a new language any more than Alloy is a new language Macneil Posted November 9 2009 at 2 12 pm Permalink Yes because it is not language design for the sake of language design Your work includes language design in terms of modularity expression and the task of programming itself Macneil Posted November 12 2009 at 10 53 am Permalink Have an ALARMING good birthday today Jonathan Edwards Posted November 12 2009 at 11 46 am Permalink Thanks Mac Jonathan Aldrich Posted November 12 2009 at 10 55 pm Permalink It s unfortunately true that papers on the overall design of a language as opposed to narrow features are getting rarer However if you re looking for them I think OOPSLA and ECOOP is still the place to look Both the Thorn and Flapjax papers this year were in the category of SE centric language designs the contributions were focused on the overall design not any one feature perhaps as evidence of this the Thorn group has a separate paper coming out in POPL on their most novel technical feature like types While ICSE FSE may be open to some language design work e g I sent the design of ArchJava to ICSE a few years back I think OOPSLA is still more friendly Sean McDirmid Posted November 14 2009 at 1 42 am Permalink Its very much about the community There is an OOPSLA community a POPL community an ICFP community a PLDI community an ICSE community etc Each community is receptive to some set of ideas and crossovers are somewhat difficult On the other hand an idea that is not fresh in one community might appear more fresh in another community FlapJax is very much FRP and could be considered ICFP material but would be difficult to publish in ICFP but actually worked very well in OOPSLA very surprised to see this paper pop up there though I think I ll try to write PL oriented SIGGRAPH paper and see what happens John Z Bo Zabroski Posted November 2 2009 at 11 44 am Permalink Very interesting take on Liskov s Turing Award lecture On

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=338 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Onward talk
    head around the efficiency complexity benefits I ve looked at a few of these data binding architectures and there are some common patterns They tend to declaratively connect the view directly to the model but do not handle the types of dependency problems you are talking about here You get ambiguous execution orders perhaps inconsistent results or perhaps just multiple firings to get to the final result That certainly limits their applicability Back in 1991 I built a system called AVS Express www avs com which uses a slightly different data binding approach It supports both push and pull style expression bindings It also supports read write dependencies between listeners to avoid duplicate firings when there are no cycles in the data dependencies This made data binding suitable for long computations a superset of the data flow case but it required manually specifying read and write data dependencies which was a burden on the component developer Right now I m trying to modernize some of those ideas in new language I m experimenting with based on Java My current design supports events for both the get and set supports read write and read write bindings binding against most Java expression types Bindings are queued and executed in a dependency order based on the dependencies I can detect through the binding expression I also want to support an option for a lazy binding i e one that is executed when you call the get versus the set All of that plus good tracing and debugging tools and I think this becomes a robust set of tools that eliminate bulky inflexible controller code and improve workflows between developers and designers I must say though that after watching your talk I m going to rethink the execution phase as there are good ideas here Do you have a handle on when coactions versus simple dependency sorting would be a difference that makes a difference I will not support as a bindable operation and think cycles in bindings are easy to detect and avoid That eliminates some challenges but not all I suspect Thanks Jeff Jonathan Edwards Posted November 2 2009 at 8 40 am Permalink Great I d like to see your new language when it s ready Kevin Yancey Posted October 28 2009 at 6 54 pm Permalink Great stuff Very pithy presentation I read some of your paper and still plan on finishing it but I think this presentation does a great job demonstrating those ideas Sergey Schetinin Posted October 28 2009 at 10 41 pm Permalink A similar project Trellis by Phillip J Eby was already mentioned in the comments before so I just wanted to mention that that work is being continued in Reaction I m the initiator of that fork and have to say there is a great deal of similarity between work of Jonathan and ours We also want to implement some of his great ideas like latches But still I think we are ahead in terms

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=335 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Eclipse of Java
    iterations of JDT You will notice that very little has changed in JDT in the past few versions of Eclipse So IBM has removed almost all of its developers from working on JDT I believe there are none working on it full time any more My guess is that their job is to bug fix and to keep things stable Adding support for new languages is definitely destabilizing and so falls outside of their scope I ve looked closely at this issue and the problems are political economic and not technical It is not in IBM s best interest to support Java like languages on the JVM and so IBM as the current gatekeepers of JDT have no reason to make the changes Jonathan Edwards Posted October 1 2009 at 7 06 pm Permalink Andrew thanks for the corrections and clarifications So do you think that the new JVM languages should band together and fork the JDT Andrew Eisenberg Posted October 1 2009 at 10 02 pm Permalink Funny you should mention that because we just got together via skype earlier this week to chat about things There s nothing formal We re just trying to get a few of the basics down eg How do we make sure that all these language tools don t step on each other s toes they already do What is better for which circumstance feature patching or weaving We have a fairly good idea of some minimal functionality to push into JDT that but we haven t thought about how to convince the JDT team to accept any potential changes If you are interested in learning more you can join the google group http groups google ca group jdt hackers John Z Bo Zabroski Posted October 2 2009 at 10 24 am Permalink Just wondering I saw the presentation online via the slides Jonathan linked and was not there in person What s wrong with DLTK Dynamic Languages Tool Kit Also how familiar are you with how other IDEs manage plug ins and extensibility we havenâ t thought about how to convince the JDT team to accept any potential changes Sounds like all the thinking you need to do is remember this It is not in IBMâ s best interest to support Java like languages on the JVM and so IBM as the current gatekeepers of JDT have no reason to make the changes Andrew Eisenberg Posted October 2 2009 at 10 35 am Permalink Just wondering I saw the presentation online via the slides Jonathan linked and was not there in person Whatâ s wrong with DLTK Dynamic Languages Tool Kit There is nothing wrong with DLTK It does a great job of providing support for languages that do not need to interact with the Java model However the DLTK does not allow your language to hook into the java builder or allow your language to hook into Java search etc Also how familiar are you with how other IDEs manage plug

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=330 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Lost in the forest
    general As an aside I dislike the fact Kay and Warth don t use run to completon semantics as a way of defining whether an operation leaves a program in a consistent state moving the program counter is in fact a side effect To me the difference between worlds and coherent reactions is that worlds are designed top down whereas coherent reactions are designed bottom up This is therefore two different ways of modeling object interaction The way coherent reaction works it also hides Warth Kay s sprout commit semantics by instead requiring run to completion for each nested level In addition it seems like Warth s approach leaves you with flattened subtrees Thus all you are doing is defining a computation space The trees are never flattened in the Coherence paper which is probably the subtleties of trees Jonathan is having problems implementing Both approaches use prototype based object models and basically add transactional semantics to classical Jackson Inversion There was actually a commercial software package by mainframe manufacturer ICL in the 80s that did the latter but it was ahead of its time See Database Processing in RADS Rapid Application Development System which later became ICL QuickBuild Also I don t believe RADS QuickBuild was Turing complete Also Research is confusing and unpredictable and Iâ m not very good at it In the recent book Coders at Work Simon Peyton Jones reflects back on how when he was first starting out he would just sit in his office waiting for great ideas to just come to him Francisco Sant Anna Posted October 3 2009 at 2 45 pm Permalink Hello Jonathan I would like to share with you my recent work also on reactive languages LuaGrvity is implemented as runtime extensions to the Lua language and tries to reconcile Esterel reactive style with FRP Check my website if you are interested http thesynchronousblog wordpress com Kind Regards Francisco Jonathan Edwards Posted October 3 2009 at 7 29 pm Permalink Francisco Thanks for letting me know about your work It looks interesting and I will definitely read the paper Jonathan Jonathan Edwards Posted October 5 2009 at 9 59 am Permalink Francisco Very nice work with a good balance of power and usability like much of Lua Have you looked at Sean McDirmid s SuperGlue It has declarative linking like you do To me the nicest and as far as I know novel idea in the paper is the way single threaded access to variables is guaranteed by the scheduler The thing that bothers me the most is the split between LINK and SPAWN You don t say it but presumably LINKs must be set up statically during some initialization The nice properties of links do not apply to dynamic spawns particularly glitch avoidance and single threaded variables You stress implicit invocation as the key feature but I find that a little confusing as LINKs are quite explicit it is just that they are declarative rather than imperative I

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=319 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Scala is Groovy
    the other hand none of this runs under OS X which is sad because I own three Macs and no PCs At any rate Swing is dead for modern UIs and I see the JVM platform dying as a platform for modern and experimental UI I would love to see Scala on NET but I ve been waiting a long time without seeing any kind of progress so I ve basically given up hope Also the type erased nature of Scala means that creating an C interoperable version of Scala on NET would be very difficult perhaps the DLR would help who knows So my love affair with Scala has basically ended up in heartbreak although I gained so much from my experience from working with the language and its creators Jonathan Edwards Posted July 7 2009 at 8 58 pm Permalink I am totally with you Sean It strikes me that you are uniquely qualified to fix this problem You are an expert in both Scala and next gen UI Why don t you bridge Scala and JavaFX And throw in some Superglue Bling magic for good measure JFX is still immature but it has the basics and Sun is investing in it Unfortunately Sun is not providing a Java API into JFX What were they thinking But it should be possible to reverse engineer Andres Almiray has started a bridge from Groovy FxBuilder Some sort of collab might be possible What do you think Sean McDirmid Posted July 7 2009 at 9 57 pm Permalink Bling essentially turns WPF into something like JavaFX by providing high level language abstractions for databinding and animation hacked into C using properties and operator overloading I suspect JavaFX in Java would look a lot like conventional WPF in C without XAML which would probably be pretty ugly I see why Sun would be hesitant to enable access of the JavaFX library from within Java but they could mitigate that by providing in language abstractions for databinding and animation i e evolve Java Scala has no such limitation and I believe ScalaFX an ongoing project at the EPFL that I m not involved in will provide what you want eventually However even with something like ScalaFX you are still limited to the Java environment though one of the best things I like about NET is that I can play around directly with programmable GPUs I can dynamically generate and load vertex and pixel shaders which form their own powerful computational model Bling provides support for WPF pixel shaders will eventually support DirectX 10 vertex pixel shaders I think harnessing the power of programmable GPUs in a high level way is the key to next generation UIs John Z Bo Zabroski Posted July 10 2009 at 4 22 pm Permalink I like your points about programmable GPUs Ivan Sutherland s Wheel of Reincarnation is repeating itself John Z Bo Zabroski Posted July 10 2009 at 4 20 pm Permalink Have you read Sean s

    Original URL path: http://alarmingdevelopment.org/?p=304 (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •