[M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark - anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]

Tue Jul 5 23:58:21 CEST 2011

Hi all:
I mean in terms of Reactor Critical Mass, the core, hopefully safe well enough cool for the nextg wave in Programming (sorry, but I guess this is not a good comparison).

Thanks in advance

--- El mar, 5/7/11, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es> escribió:

> De: Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark - anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com, "Hendrik Boom" <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> Fecha: martes, 5 de julio, 2011 16:38
> Hi all:
> I see now, the reason was explained by Luca Cardelli on his
> "recent" interview, they asked to come with something of
> practical use, yet they had pressure, to retrieve some good
> quality work of good practical results, that become the
> Theory of Objects (with Abadi, see [3]) on:
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.34.4024
> 
> But the theory on Baby Modula-3 was the idealization they
> had on Modula-3 typing system, unfortunately more work on
> that got that direction, towards the final years on the
> laboratory was somewhat cut, that explains why Larch project
> wasn't continued there after initial works (fortunately
> continued though Greg Nelson ESC work, which is by itself
> more practical).
> And yes, I believe this is path for a good structured at
> least terms comprehension of the language (I mean whenever I
> take foreign language, i.e English class i must study
> phonetics, semantics and grammar, well at least that's is
> what I was told by a former German language undergraduate
> student, specially grammar, which is for us specially hard,
> maybe be not the case for say you know, almost anyone else),
> so in this terms this is good to know for our future
> culprits, similarly we could argue for i.e us Computer
> scientists, the most valuable experience using Modula-3 was
> in Cambridge (and I have seen real good Modula-3 seminal
> work coming from there as well as other ones as well)
> Abadi and Cardelli and Matthes created a theory to create
> extensible syntax and use it  in a DB realization of
> Modula-3:
> 
> http://www.hpl.hp.com/techreports/Compaq-DEC/SRC-RR-121.pdf
> 
> I guess this could be the way to go, besides the seminal
> work in denotational (to express Modula-3 correctness in
> baby Modula-3) is available for free from its author:
> http://people.cis.ksu.edu/~schmidt/text/densem.html
> 
> I believe we could make a point on this results preliminary
> but very important for us to depart from the rest of
> approaches, or at least have our own version (Baby Modula-3
> is not BTW implemented as for what I know about, I wish
> could be proved to be correct, but I don't know neither,
> could be interpreted as it is, so I haven't seen it).
> 
> That said, there is even more, some people went through the
> work or recapitulating the Theory of Objects in terms of
> denotational semantics
> 
> http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~jg531/mypubl/pre-PhD/direc-WOOD.pdf
> 
> And a way to unify them based on recursive types, or say a
> way to treat programming language type back and forth (note
> I didn't say types if so, this is not the case), one of its
> authors wrote the most used book on "Types for Programming
> languages":, the former [2]:
> 
> http://citeseer.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.17.5855
> 
> Perhaps this is the way an actual Baby Modula-3
> implementation might become a good vehicle to explain
> programming language semantics (maybe not programming
> languages at all, just their semantics).
> If somebody agrees on that as Cardelli said to be this the
> next wave in his interview on Modula-3, let's bring it on
> www-baby.modula3.com for instance
> 
> Let mew know your thoughts, thanks in advance
> 
> [1] P. Robinson, “From ML to C via Modula-3 an approach
> to teaching programming,” 1994.
> 
> [2] M. Hofmann and B. Pierce, “A Unifying Type-Theoretic
> Framework for Objects,” 1993.
> 
> [3] M. Abadi and L. Cardelli, “A Semantics of Object
> Types,” PROC. IEEE SYMPOSIUM ON LOGIC IN COMPUTER SCIENCE,
> p. 332--341, 1994.
> 
> 
> --- El mar, 5/7/11, Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> escribió:
> 
> > De: Daniel Alejandro Benavides D. <dabenavidesd at yahoo.es>
> > Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark -
> anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> > Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com,
> "Hendrik Boom" <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > Fecha: martes, 5 de julio, 2011 13:57
> > Hi all:
> > yes, in that domain yes, but in the many ways of
> solving a
> > problem, computers have a rather limited extent,
> therefore
> > you can't expect such facilities, but for things like
> > automating algorithm comprehension, this is a task of
> > algorithmic learning.
> > A way of this ahs been proposed for a constraint
> language
> > (e.g Juno),:
> > http://books.google.com/books?id=m-BQAAAAMAAJ&q=juno+algorithmic+learning&dq=juno+algorithmic+learning&hl=en&ei=R1oTTqStJ-Tg0QHf0sTHDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAA
> >  
> > Well that said, the idea behind of this is how to
> optimize
> > the program, but to define a good type system
> implementable
> > is important too, is good to have many kernel for
> doing
> > that. Abadi-Cardelli is a good one, but certainly not
> the
> > only one, Abadi Baby Modula-3 is yet another one, I
> can't
> > understand, it should be be in the Modula-3 research
> > reports, or in the bibliography, I will see, how
> about
> > that.
> > 
> > Thanks in advance
> > 
> > --- El mar, 5/7/11, Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > escribió:
> > 
> > > De: Hendrik Boom <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>
> > > Asunto: Re: [M3devel] JIT [WAS: Google Benchmark
> -
> > anyone interested in an Modula 3 version?]
> > > Para: m3devel at elegosoft.com
> > > Fecha: martes, 5 de julio, 2011 12:34
> > > On Tue, Jul 05, 2011 at 12:08:07PM
> > > -0500, felipe valdez wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 11:50 AM, Hendrik
> Boom
> > <hendrik at topoi.pooq.com>wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > > Ideally, the computer should do about
> the
> > same
> > > amount of type
> > > > > inferencing that a human reader would
> easily
> > do
> > > when reading
> > > > > the program.  Note that I said
> > "reader", not
> > > "writer".
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > but how far are we from this Ideal, really?
> > > > can these rules be automated?
> > > 
> > > The hard part here is figuring out what human
> readers
> > can
> > > do.  It's 
> > > important to match the human reader and not to
> go
> > beyond
> > > his abilities.  
> > > Because then the writer (who will probably
> understand
> > his
> > > program bettr 
> > > than a reader) will get feedback from his
> type-checker
> > when
> > > the code 
> > > gets too obscure for a reader.
> > > 
> > > -- hendrik
> > >
> >
> 