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

Reasoning about the garden of forking paths

Lazy evaluation is a powerful tool for functional programmers. It enables the concise expression of on-demand computation and a form of compositionality not available under other evaluation strategies. However, the stateful nature of lazy evaluation makes it hard to analyze a program's computational cost, either informally or formally. In this work, we present a novel and simple framework for formally reasoning about lazy computation costs based on a recent model of lazy evaluation: clairvoyant call-by-value. The key feature of our framework is its simplicity, as expressed by our definition of the clairvoyance monad. This monad is both simple to define (around 20 lines of Coq) and simple to reason about. We show that this monad can be effectively used to mechanically reason about the computational cost of lazy functional programs written in Coq.Comment: 28 pages, accepted by ICFP'2

Computable decision making on the reals and other spaces via partiality and nondeterminism

Though many safety-critical software systems use floating point to represent real-world input and output, programmers usually have idealized versions in mind that compute with real numbers. Significant deviations from the ideal can cause errors and jeopardize safety. Some programming systems implement exact real arithmetic, which resolves this matter but complicates others, such as decision making. In these systems, it is impossible to compute (total and deterministic) discrete decisions based on connected spaces such as $\mathbb{R}$. We present programming-language semantics based on constructive topology with variants allowing nondeterminism and/or partiality. Either nondeterminism or partiality suffices to allow computable decision making on connected spaces such as $\mathbb{R}$. We then introduce pattern matching on spaces, a language construct for creating programs on spaces, generalizing pattern matching in functional programming, where patterns need not represent decidable predicates and also may overlap or be inexhaustive, giving rise to nondeterminism or partiality, respectively. Nondeterminism and/or partiality also yield formal logics for constructing approximate decision procedures. We implemented these constructs in the Marshall language for exact real arithmetic.Comment: This is an extended version of a paper due to appear in the proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Symposium on Logic in Computer Science (LICS) in July 201