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

Design and Implementation of a Concurrent Logic Programming Language with Linear Logic Constraints

My thesis aims at designing a practical language as close as possible to the linear concurrent constraint (LCC) theory. The main contribution is a new operational semantics which behaves as an angelic scheduler with a tractable algorithmic complexity. This operational semantics is sound and complete with respect to the logical semantics and allows the construction of a rich language over a very simple kernel

Observational equivalences for linear logic CC languages

Linear logic Concurrent Constraint programming (LCC) is an extension of concurrent constraint programming (CC) where the constraint system is based on Girard's linear logic instead of the classical logic. In this paper we address the problem of program equivalence for this programming framework. For this purpose, we present a structural operational semantics for LCC based on a label transition system and investigate different notions of observational equivalences inspired by the state of art of process algebras. Then, we demonstrate that the asynchronous \pi-calculus can be viewed as simple syntactical restrictions of LCC. Finally we show LCC observational equivalences can be transposed straightforwardly to classical Concurrent Constraint languages and Constraint Handling Rules, and investigate the resulting equivalences.Comment: 17 page

Generalization Strategies for the Verification of Infinite State Systems

We present a method for the automated verification of temporal properties of infinite state systems. Our verification method is based on the specialization of constraint logic programs (CLP) and works in two phases: (1) in the first phase, a CLP specification of an infinite state system is specialized with respect to the initial state of the system and the temporal property to be verified, and (2) in the second phase, the specialized program is evaluated by using a bottom-up strategy. The effectiveness of the method strongly depends on the generalization strategy which is applied during the program specialization phase. We consider several generalization strategies obtained by combining techniques already known in the field of program analysis and program transformation, and we also introduce some new strategies. Then, through many verification experiments, we evaluate the effectiveness of the generalization strategies we have considered. Finally, we compare the implementation of our specialization-based verification method to other constraint-based model checking tools. The experimental results show that our method is competitive with the methods used by those other tools. To appear in Theory and Practice of Logic Programming (TPLP).Comment: 24 pages, 2 figures, 5 table

An overview of ciao and its design philosophy

We provide an overall description of the Ciao multiparadigm programming system emphasizing some of the novel aspects and motivations behind its design and implementation. An important aspect of Ciao is that, in addition to supporting logic programming (and, in particular, Prolog), 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 (including those of Prolog) 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 assignment, predicates, Prolog meta-programming, 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 optimizations (including automatic parallelization). Such optimizations produce code that is highly competitive with other dynamic languages or, with the (experimental) optimizing compiler, even that of static languages, all while retaining the flexibility and interactive development of a dynamic language. This compilation architecture supports modularity and separate compilation throughout. The environment also includes a powerful autodocumenter and a unit testing framework, both closely integrated with the assertion system. 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 a single journal paper, pointing instead to previous Ciao literature

An overview of Ciao and its design philosophy

We provide an overall description of the Ciao multiparadigm programming sy stem emphasizing some of the novel aspects and motivations behind its design and implementation. An important aspect of Ciao is that, in addition to supporting logic programming (and, in particular, Prolog), 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 (including those of Prolog) 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 assignment, predicates, Prolog meta-programming, 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 flnding non-trivial bugs, verifying that programs comply with speciflcations, and performing many types of optimizations (including automatic parallelization). Such optimizations produce code that is highly competitive with other dynamic languages or, with the (experimental) optimizing compiler, even that of static languages, all while retaining the flexibility and interactive development of a dynamic language. This compilation architecture supports modularity and sepárate compilation throughout. The environment also includes a powerful auto-documenter and a unit testing framework, both closely integrated with the assertion system. 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 a single journal paper, pointing instead to previous Ciao literature