10,999 research outputs found
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
PDDL2.1: An extension of PDDL for expressing temporal planning domains
In recent years research in the planning community has moved increasingly towards application of planners to realistic problems involving both time and many types of resources. For example, interest in planning demonstrated by the space research community has inspired work in observation scheduling, planetary rover ex ploration and spacecraft control domains. Other temporal and resource-intensive domains including logistics planning, plant control and manufacturing have also helped to focus the community on the modelling and reasoning issues that must be confronted to make planning technology meet the challenges of application. The International Planning Competitions have acted as an important motivating force behind the progress that has been made in planning since 1998. The third competition (held in 2002) set the planning community the challenge of handling time and numeric resources. This necessitated the development of a modelling language capable of expressing temporal and numeric properties of planning domains. In this paper we describe the language, PDDL2.1, that was used in the competition. We describe the syntax of the language, its formal semantics and the validation of concurrent plans. We observe that PDDL2.1 has considerable modelling power --- exceeding the capabilities of current planning technology --- and presents a number of important challenges to the research community
Recommended from our members
EXTEND-L : an input language for extensible register transfer compilation
This report discusses the model and input language for EXTEND, a synthesis system that permits extensible register transfer synthesis. EXTEND-L fills the need for a language that bridges the gap between existing behavioral input descriptions, which are too abstract, and structural schematics, which cannot capture the high-level behavior. The report first discusses previous work in behavioral synthesis and summarizes the deficiencies of these behavioral specifications. The report then describes the proposed langauge in detail, and concludes with a few examples that show its utility
Subclassing errors, OOP, and practically checkable rules to prevent them
This paper considers an example of Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) leading
to subtle errors that break separation of interface and implementations. A
comprehensive principle that guards against such errors is undecidable. The
paper introduces a set of mechanically verifiable rules that prevent these
insidious problems. Although the rules seem restrictive, they are powerful and
expressive, as we show on several familiar examples. The rules contradict both
the spirit and the letter of the OOP. The present examples as well as available
theoretical and experimental results pose a question if OOP is conducive to
software development at all.Comment: 10 pages, 1 LaTeX file; accompanying C++ and Haskell code and
compilation instruction
TreatJS: Higher-Order Contracts for JavaScript
TreatJS is a language embedded, higher-order contract system for JavaScript
which enforces contracts by run-time monitoring. Beyond providing the standard
abstractions for building higher-order contracts (base, function, and object
contracts), TreatJS's novel contributions are its guarantee of non-interfering
contract execution, its systematic approach to blame assignment, its support
for contracts in the style of union and intersection types, and its notion of a
parameterized contract scope, which is the building block for composable
run-time generated contracts that generalize dependent function contracts.
TreatJS is implemented as a library so that all aspects of a contract can be
specified using the full JavaScript language. The library relies on JavaScript
proxies to guarantee full interposition for contracts. It further exploits
JavaScript's reflective features to run contracts in a sandbox environment,
which guarantees that the execution of contract code does not modify the
application state. No source code transformation or change in the JavaScript
run-time system is required.
The impact of contracts on execution speed is evaluated using the Google
Octane benchmark.Comment: Technical Repor
Probabilistic Programming Concepts
A multitude of different probabilistic programming languages exists today,
all extending a traditional programming language with primitives to support
modeling of complex, structured probability distributions. Each of these
languages employs its own probabilistic primitives, and comes with a particular
syntax, semantics and inference procedure. This makes it hard to understand the
underlying programming concepts and appreciate the differences between the
different languages. To obtain a better understanding of probabilistic
programming, we identify a number of core programming concepts underlying the
primitives used by various probabilistic languages, discuss the execution
mechanisms that they require and use these to position state-of-the-art
probabilistic languages and their implementation. While doing so, we focus on
probabilistic extensions of logic programming languages such as Prolog, which
have been developed since more than 20 years
- âŠ