Synthesizing Functional Reactive Programs

Functional Reactive Programming (FRP) is a paradigm that has simplified the construction of reactive programs. There are many libraries that implement incarnations of FRP, using abstractions such as Applicative, Monads, and Arrows. However, finding a good control flow, that correctly manages state and switches behaviors at the right times, still poses a major challenge to developers. An attractive alternative is specifying the behavior instead of programming it, as made possible by the recently developed logic: Temporal Stream Logic (TSL). However, it has not been explored so far how Control Flow Models (CFMs), as synthesized from TSL specifications, can be turned into executable code that is compatible with libraries building on FRP. We bridge this gap, by showing that CFMs are indeed a suitable formalism to be turned into Applicative, Monadic, and Arrowized FRP. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our translations on a real-world kitchen timer application, which we translate to a desktop application using the Arrowized FRP library Yampa, a web application using the Monadic threepenny-gui library, and to hardware using the Applicative hardware description language ClaSH.Comment: arXiv admin note: text overlap with arXiv:1712.0024

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

Nominal Logic Programming

Nominal logic is an extension of first-order logic which provides a simple foundation for formalizing and reasoning about abstract syntax modulo consistent renaming of bound names (that is, alpha-equivalence). This article investigates logic programming based on nominal logic. We describe some typical nominal logic programs, and develop the model-theoretic, proof-theoretic, and operational semantics of such programs. Besides being of interest for ensuring the correct behavior of implementations, these results provide a rigorous foundation for techniques for analysis and reasoning about nominal logic programs, as we illustrate via examples.Comment: 46 pages; 19 page appendix; 13 figures. Revised journal submission as of July 23, 200

Applying Formal Methods to Networking: Theory, Techniques and Applications

Despite its great importance, modern network infrastructure is remarkable for the lack of rigor in its engineering. The Internet which began as a research experiment was never designed to handle the users and applications it hosts today. The lack of formalization of the Internet architecture meant limited abstractions and modularity, especially for the control and management planes, thus requiring for every new need a new protocol built from scratch. This led to an unwieldy ossified Internet architecture resistant to any attempts at formal verification, and an Internet culture where expediency and pragmatism are favored over formal correctness. Fortunately, recent work in the space of clean slate Internet design---especially, the software defined networking (SDN) paradigm---offers the Internet community another chance to develop the right kind of architecture and abstractions. This has also led to a great resurgence in interest of applying formal methods to specification, verification, and synthesis of networking protocols and applications. In this paper, we present a self-contained tutorial of the formidable amount of work that has been done in formal methods, and present a survey of its applications to networking.Comment: 30 pages, submitted to IEEE Communications Surveys and Tutorial