A Rational Deconstruction of Landin's SECD Machine with the J Operator

Landin's SECD machine was the first abstract machine for applicative expressions, i.e., functional programs. Landin's J operator was the first control operator for functional languages, and was specified by an extension of the SECD machine. We present a family of evaluation functions corresponding to this extension of the SECD machine, using a series of elementary transformations (transformation into continu-ation-passing style (CPS) and defunctionalization, chiefly) and their left inverses (transformation into direct style and refunctionalization). To this end, we modernize the SECD machine into a bisimilar one that operates in lockstep with the original one but that (1) does not use a data stack and (2) uses the caller-save rather than the callee-save convention for environments. We also identify that the dump component of the SECD machine is managed in a callee-save way. The caller-save counterpart of the modernized SECD machine precisely corresponds to Thielecke's double-barrelled continuations and to Felleisen's encoding of J in terms of call/cc. We then variously characterize the J operator in terms of CPS and in terms of delimited-control operators in the CPS hierarchy. As a byproduct, we also present several reduction semantics for applicative expressions with the J operator, based on Curien's original calculus of explicit substitutions. These reduction semantics mechanically correspond to the modernized versions of the SECD machine and to the best of our knowledge, they provide the first syntactic theories of applicative expressions with the J operator

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

A Survey of Parallel Programming Constructs

This paper surveys the types of parallelism found in Functional, Lisp and Object-Oriented languages. In particular, it concentrates on the addition of high level parallel constructs to these types of languages. The traditional area of the automatic extraction of parallelism by a compiler [39] is ignored here in favor of the addition of new constructs, because the long history of such automatic techniques has shown that they are not sufficient to allow the massive parallelism promised from modem computer architectures [26. 58]. The problem then, simply stated, is given that it is now possible for us to build massively parallel machines and given that our current compilers seem incapable of generating sufficient parallelism automatically, what should the language designer do? A reasonable answer seems to be to add constructs to languages that allow the expression of additional parallelism in a natural way. Indeed that is what the designers of the the Functional, Lisp, and Object-Oriented languages described below have attempted to do. The three particular programming formalisms were picked because most of the initial ideas seem to have been generated by the designers of the functional languages and most of the current activity seems to be in the Lisp and Objected-Oriented domains. There is also a great deal of activity in the Logic programming area, but this activity is more in the area of executing the existing constructs in parallel as opposed to adding constructs specifically designed to increase parallelism

A Direct-Style Effect Notation for Sequential and Parallel Programs

Modeling sequential and parallel composition of effectful computations has been investigated in a variety of languages for a long time. In particular, the popular do-notation provides a lightweight effect embedding for any instance of a monad. Idiom bracket notation, on the other hand, provides an embedding for applicatives. First, while monads force effects to be executed sequentially, ignoring potential for parallelism, applicatives do not support sequential effects. Composing sequential with parallel effects remains an open problem. This is even more of an issue as real programs consist of a combination of both sequential and parallel segments. Second, common notations do not support invoking effects in direct-style, instead forcing a rigid structure upon the code. In this paper, we propose a mixed applicative/monadic notation that retains parallelism where possible, but allows sequentiality where necessary. We leverage a direct-style notation where sequentiality or parallelism is derived from the structure of the code. We provide a mechanisation of our effectful language in Coq and prove that our compilation approach retains the parallelism of the source program

Elementary data structures in ALGOL-like languages

AbstractJ.C. Reynolds has pointed out that ALGOL 60 has a set of properties not shared by most of the languages usually regarded as being its successors. We propose to use this ALGOL-like framework to design a language that could adequately support both applicative and imperative programming while also retaining the advantages of each of the “pure” frameworks. This paper discusses elementary data-structuring facilities (products, arrays, sums) for such a language, taking advantage of recent developments, such as this author's “quantification” notation, and the notion of “conjunctive type” proposed by Coppo and Dezani, and adapted to explicitly-typed languages by Reynolds

Reducing the Cost of Precise Types

Programs involving precise types enforce more properties via type checking, but precise types also prevent the reuse of functions throughout a program since no single precise type is used throughout a large program. My work is a step toward eliminating the underlying dilemma regarding type precision versus function reuse. It culminates in a novel traversal operator that recovers the reuse by automating most of each conversion between "similar" precise types, for a notion of similarity that I characterize in both the intuitive and technical senses. The benefits of my techniques are clear in side-by-side comparisons; in particular, I apply my techniques to two definitions of lambda-lifting. I present and implement my techniques in the Haskell programming language, but the fundamental ideas are applicable to any statically- and strongly-typed programming functional language with algebraic data types