A Swiss Pocket Knife for Computability

This research is about operational- and complexity-oriented aspects of classical foundations of computability theory. The approach is to re-examine some classical theorems and constructions, but with new criteria for success that are natural from a programming language perspective. Three cornerstones of computability theory are the S-m-ntheorem; Turing's "universal machine"; and Kleene's second recursion theorem. In today's programming language parlance these are respectively partial evaluation, self-interpretation, and reflection. In retrospect it is fascinating that Kleene's 1938 proof is constructive; and in essence builds a self-reproducing program. Computability theory originated in the 1930s, long before the invention of computers and programs. Its emphasis was on delimiting the boundaries of computability. Some milestones include 1936 (Turing), 1938 (Kleene), 1967 (isomorphism of programming languages), 1985 (partial evaluation), 1989 (theory implementation), 1993 (efficient self-interpretation) and 2006 (term register machines). The "Swiss pocket knife" of the title is a programming language that allows efficient computer implementation of all three computability cornerstones, emphasising the third: Kleene's second recursion theorem. We describe experiments with a tree-based computational model aiming for both fast program generation and fast execution of the generated programs.Comment: In Proceedings Festschrift for Dave Schmidt, arXiv:1309.455

Rewriting Constraint Models with Metamodels

An important challenge in constraint programming is to rewrite constraint models into executable programs calculat- ing the solutions. This phase of constraint processing may require translations between constraint programming lan- guages, transformations of constraint representations, model optimizations, and tuning of solving strategies. In this paper, we introduce a pivot metamodel describing the common fea- tures of constraint models including different kinds of con- straints, statements like conditionals and loops, and other first-class elements like object classes and predicates. This metamodel is general enough to cope with the constructions of many languages, from object-oriented modeling languages to logic languages, but it is independent from them. The rewriting operations manipulate metamodel instances apart from languages. As a consequence, the rewriting operations apply whatever languages are selected and they are able to manage model semantic information. A bridge is created between the metamodel space and languages using parsing techniques. Tools from the software engineering world can be useful to implement this framework

The essence of component-based design and coordination

Is there a characteristic of coordination languages that makes them qualitatively different from general programming languages and deserves special academic attention? This report proposes a nuanced answer in three parts. The first part highlights that coordination languages are the means by which composite software applications can be specified using components that are only available separately, or later in time, via standard interfacing mechanisms. The second part highlights that most currently used languages provide mechanisms to use externally provided components, and thus exhibit some elements of coordination. However not all do, and the availability of an external interface thus forms an objective and qualitative criterion that distinguishes coordination. The third part argues that despite the qualitative difference, the segregation of academic attention away from general language design and implementation has non-obvious cost trade-offs.Comment: 8 pages, 2 figures, 3 table