Transitioning from structural to nominal code with efficient gradual typing

Gradual typing is a principled means for mixing typed and untyped code. But typed and untyped code often exhibit different programming patterns. There is already substantial research investigating gradually giving types to code exhibiting typical untyped patterns, and some research investigating gradually removing types from code exhibiting typical typed patterns. This paper investigates how to extend these established gradual-typing concepts to give formal guarantees not only about how to change types as code evolves but also about how to change such programming patterns as well. In particular, we explore mixing untyped "structural" code with typed "nominal" code in an object-oriented language. But whereas previous work only allowed "nominal" objects to be treated as "structural" objects, we also allow "structural" objects to dynamically acquire certain nominal types, namely interfaces. We present a calculus that supports such "cross-paradigm" code migration and interoperation in a manner satisfying both the static and dynamic gradual guarantees, and demonstrate that the calculus can be implemented efficiently

KafKa: Gradual Typing for Objects

A wide range of gradual type systems have been proposed, providing many languages with the ability to mix typed and untyped code. However, hiding under language details, these gradual type systems embody fundamentally different ideas of what it means to be well-typed. In this paper, we show that four of the most common gradual type systems provide distinct guarantees, and we give a formal framework for comparing gradual type systems for object-oriented languages. First, we show that the different gradual type systems are practically distinguishable via a three-part litmus test. We present a formal framework for defining and comparing gradual type systems. Within this framework, different gradual type systems become translations between a common source and target language, allowing for direct comparison of semantics and guarantees

The Dynamic Practice and Static Theory of Gradual Typing

We can tease apart the research on gradual types into two `lineages\u27: a pragmatic, implementation-oriented dynamic-first lineage and a formal, type-theoretic, static-first lineage. The dynamic-first lineage\u27s focus is on taming particular idioms - `pre-existing conditions\u27 in untyped programming languages. The static-first lineage\u27s focus is on interoperation and individual type system features, rather than the collection of features found in any particular language. Both appear in programming languages research under the name "gradual typing", and they are in active conversation with each other. What are these two lineages? What challenges and opportunities await the static-first lineage? What progress has been made so far