Logic programming in the context of multiparadigm programming: the Oz experience

Oz is a multiparadigm language that supports logic programming as one of its major paradigms. A multiparadigm language is designed to support different programming paradigms (logic, functional, constraint, object-oriented, sequential, concurrent, etc.) with equal ease. This article has two goals: to give a tutorial of logic programming in Oz and to show how logic programming fits naturally into the wider context of multiparadigm programming. Our experience shows that there are two classes of problems, which we call algorithmic and search problems, for which logic programming can help formulate practical solutions. Algorithmic problems have known efficient algorithms. Search problems do not have known efficient algorithms but can be solved with search. The Oz support for logic programming targets these two problem classes specifically, using the concepts needed for each. This is in contrast to the Prolog approach, which targets both classes with one set of concepts, which results in less than optimal support for each class. To explain the essential difference between algorithmic and search programs, we define the Oz execution model. This model subsumes both concurrent logic programming (committed-choice-style) and search-based logic programming (Prolog-style). Instead of Horn clause syntax, Oz has a simple, fully compositional, higher-order syntax that accommodates the abilities of the language. We conclude with lessons learned from this work, a brief history of Oz, and many entry points into the Oz literature.Comment: 48 pages, to appear in the journal "Theory and Practice of Logic Programming

Independent AND-parallel implementation of narrowing

We present a parallel graph narrowing machine, which is used to implement a functional logic language on a shared memory multiprocessor. It is an extensión of an abstract machine for a purely functional language. The result is a programmed graph reduction machine which integrates the mechanisms of unification, backtracking, and independent and-parallelism. In the machine, the subexpressions of an expression can run in parallel. In the case of backtracking, the structure of an expression is used to avoid the reevaluation of subexpressions as far as possible. Deterministic computations are detected. Their results are maintained and need not be reevaluated after backtracking

An overview of the ciao multiparadigm language and program development environment and its design philosophy

We describe some of the novel aspects and motivations behind the design and implementation of the Ciao multiparadigm programming system. An important aspect of Ciao is that it provides the programmer with a large number of useful features from different programming paradigms and styles, and that the use of each of these features can be turned on and off at will for each program module. Thus, a given module may be using e.g. higher order functions and constraints, while another module may be using objects, predicates, and concurrency. Furthermore, the language is designed to be extensible in a simple and modular way. Another important aspect of Ciao is its programming environment, which provides a powerful preprocessor (with an associated assertion language) capable of statically finding non-trivial bugs, verifying that programs comply with specifications, and performing many types of program optimizations. Such optimizations produce code that is highly competitive with other dynamic languages or, when the highest levéis of optimization are used, even that of static languages, all while retaining the interactive development environment of a dynamic language. The environment also includes a powerful auto-documenter. The paper provides an informal overview of the language and program development environment. It aims at illustrating the design philosophy rather than at being exhaustive, which would be impossible in the format of a paper, pointing instead to the existing literature on the system

Combining Static and Dynamic Contract Checking for Curry

Static type systems are usually not sufficient to express all requirements on function calls. Hence, contracts with pre- and postconditions can be used to express more complex constraints on operations. Contracts can be checked at run time to ensure that operations are only invoked with reasonable arguments and return intended results. Although such dynamic contract checking provides more reliable program execution, it requires execution time and could lead to program crashes that might be detected with more advanced methods at compile time. To improve this situation for declarative languages, we present an approach to combine static and dynamic contract checking for the functional logic language Curry. Based on a formal model of contract checking for functional logic programming, we propose an automatic method to verify contracts at compile time. If a contract is successfully verified, dynamic checking of it can be omitted. This method decreases execution time without degrading reliable program execution. In the best case, when all contracts are statically verified, it provides trust in the software since crashes due to contract violations cannot occur during program execution.Comment: Pre-proceedings paper presented at the 27th International Symposium on Logic-Based Program Synthesis and Transformation (LOPSTR 2017), Namur, Belgium, 10-12 October 2017 (arXiv:1708.07854

A Proof Strategy Language and Proof Script Generation for Isabelle/HOL

We introduce a language, PSL, designed to capture high level proof strategies in Isabelle/HOL. Given a strategy and a proof obligation, PSL's runtime system generates and combines various tactics to explore a large search space with low memory usage. Upon success, PSL generates an efficient proof script, which bypasses a large part of the proof search. We also present PSL's monadic interpreter to show that the underlying idea of PSL is transferable to other ITPs.Comment: This paper has been submitted to CADE2

Finding The Lazy Programmer's Bugs

Traditionally developers and testers created huge numbers of explicit tests, enumerating interesting cases, perhaps biased by what they believe to be the current boundary conditions of the function being tested. Or at least, they were supposed to. A major step forward was the development of property testing. Property testing requires the user to write a few functional properties that are used to generate tests, and requires an external library or tool to create test data for the tests. As such many thousands of tests can be created for a single property. For the purely functional programming language Haskell there are several such libraries; for example QuickCheck [CH00], SmallCheck and Lazy SmallCheck [RNL08]. Unfortunately, property testing still requires the user to write explicit tests. Fortunately, we note there are already many implicit tests present in programs. Developers may throw assertion errors, or the compiler may silently insert runtime exceptions for incomplete pattern matches. We attempt to automate the testing process using these implicit tests. Our contributions are in four main areas: (1) We have developed algorithms to automatically infer appropriate constructors and functions needed to generate test data without requiring additional programmer work or annotations. (2) To combine the constructors and functions into test expressions we take advantage of Haskell's lazy evaluation semantics by applying the techniques of needed narrowing and lazy instantiation to guide generation. (3) We keep the type of test data at its most general, in order to prevent committing too early to monomorphic types that cause needless wasted tests. (4) We have developed novel ways of creating Haskell case expressions to inspect elements inside returned data structures, in order to discover exceptions that may be hidden by laziness, and to make our test data generation algorithm more expressive. In order to validate our claims, we have implemented these techniques in Irulan, a fully automatic tool for generating systematic black-box unit tests for Haskell library code. We have designed Irulan to generate high coverage test suites and detect common programming errors in the process