Type Generic Observing

Observing intermediate values helps to understand what is going on when your program runs. Gill presented an observation method for lazy functional languages that preserves the program's semantics. However, users need to define for each type how its values are observed: a laborious task and strictness of the program can easily be affected. Here we define how any value can be observed based on the structure of its type by applying generic programming frameworks. Furthermore we present an extension to specify per observation point how much to observe of a value. We discuss especially functional values and behaviour based on class membership in generic programming frameworks

Array operators using multiple dispatch: a design methodology for array implementations in dynamic languages

Arrays are such a rich and fundamental data type that they tend to be built into a language, either in the compiler or in a large low-level library. Defining this functionality at the user level instead provides greater flexibility for application domains not envisioned by the language designer. Only a few languages, such as C++ and Haskell, provide the necessary power to define $n$-dimensional arrays, but these systems rely on compile-time abstraction, sacrificing some flexibility. In contrast, dynamic languages make it straightforward for the user to define any behavior they might want, but at the possible expense of performance. As part of the Julia language project, we have developed an approach that yields a novel trade-off between flexibility and compile-time analysis. The core abstraction we use is multiple dispatch. We have come to believe that while multiple dispatch has not been especially popular in most kinds of programming, technical computing is its killer application. By expressing key functions such as array indexing using multi-method signatures, a surprising range of behaviors can be obtained, in a way that is both relatively easy to write and amenable to compiler analysis. The compact factoring of concerns provided by these methods makes it easier for user-defined types to behave consistently with types in the standard library.Comment: 6 pages, 2 figures, workshop paper for the ARRAY '14 workshop, June 11, 2014, Edinburgh, United Kingdo

Functional programming languages for verification tools: experiences with ML and Haskell

We compare Haskell with ML as programming languages for verification tools, based on our experience developing TRUTH in Haskell and the Edinburgh Concurrency Workbench (CWB) in ML. We discuss not only technical language features but also the "worlds" of the languages, for example, the availability of tools and libraries

How functional programming mattered

In 1989 when functional programming was still considered a niche topic, Hughes wrote a visionary paper arguing convincingly ‘why functional programming matters’. More than two decades have passed. Has functional programming really mattered? Our answer is a resounding ‘Yes!’. Functional programming is now at the forefront of a new generation of programming technologies, and enjoying increasing popularity and influence. In this paper, we review the impact of functional programming, focusing on how it has changed the way we may construct programs, the way we may verify programs, and fundamentally the way we may think about programs