Meta Programming and Reflection In
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
Programming Paradigms & Object-Oriented
4.3 (Programming Paradigms & Object-Oriented- Computer Science 9608 Programming) with Majid Tahir Syllabus Content: 4.3.1 Programming paradigms Show understanding of what is meant by a programming paradigm Show understanding of the characteristics of a number of programming paradigms (low- level, imperative (procedural), object-oriented, declarative) – low-level programming Demonstrate an ability to write low-level code that uses various address modes: o immediate, direct, indirect, indexed and relative (see Section 1.4.3 and Section 3.6.2) o imperative programming- see details in Section 2.3 (procedural programming) Object-oriented programming (OOP) o demonstrate an ability to solve a problem by designing appropriate classes o demonstrate an ability to write code that demonstrates the use of classes, inheritance, polymorphism and containment (aggregation) declarative programming o demonstrate an ability to solve a problem by writing appropriate facts and rules based on supplied information o demonstrate an ability to write code that can satisfy a goal using facts and rules Programming paradigms 1 4.3 (Programming Paradigms & Object-Oriented- Computer Science 9608 Programming) with Majid Tahir Programming paradigm: A programming paradigm is a set of programming concepts and is a fundamental style of programming. Each paradigm will support a different way of thinking and problem solving. Paradigms are supported by programming language features. Some programming languages support more than one paradigm. There are many different paradigms, not all mutually exclusive. Here are just a few different paradigms. Low-level programming paradigm The features of Low-level programming languages give us the ability to manipulate the contents of memory addresses and registers directly and exploit the architecture of a given processor. -
A Feature Model of Actor, Agent, Functional, Object, and Procedural Programming Languages
Accepted Manuscript A feature model of actor, agent, functional, object, and procedural programming languages H.R. Jordan, G. Botterweck, J.H. Noll, A. Butterfield, R.W. Collier PII: S0167-6423(14)00050-1 DOI: 10.1016/j.scico.2014.02.009 Reference: SCICO 1711 To appear in: Science of Computer Programming Received date: 9 March 2013 Revised date: 31 January 2014 Accepted date: 5 February 2014 Please cite this article in press as: H.R. Jordan et al., A feature model of actor, agent, functional, object, and procedural programming languages, Science of Computer Programming (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scico.2014.02.009 This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain. Highlights • A survey of existing programming language comparisons and comparison techniques. • Definitions of actor, agent, functional, object, and procedural programming concepts. • A feature model of general-purpose programming languages. • Mappings from five languages (C, Erlang, Haskell, Jason, and Java) to this model. A Feature Model of Actor, Agent, Functional, Object, and Procedural Programming Languages H.R. Jordana,∗, G. Botterwecka, J.H. Nolla, A. Butterfieldb, R.W. Collierc aLero, University of Limerick, Ireland bTrinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland cUniversity College Dublin, Belfield, Dublin 4, Ireland Abstract The number of programming languages is large [1] and steadily increasing [2]. -
Developer's Guide Sergey A
Complex Event Processing with Triceps CEP v1.0 Developer's Guide Sergey A. Babkin Complex Event Processing with Triceps CEP v1.0 : Developer's Guide Sergey A. Babkin Copyright © 2011, 2012 Sergey A. Babkin All rights reserved. This manual is a part of the Triceps project. It is covered by the same Triceps version of the LGPL v3 license as Triceps itself. The author can be contacted by e-mail at <[email protected]> or <[email protected]>. Many of the designations used by the manufacturers and sellers to distinguish their products are claimed as trademarks. Where those designations appear in this manual, and the author was aware of a trademark claim, the designations have been printed in caps or initial caps. While every precaution has been taken in the preparation of this manual, the author assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions, or for damages resulting from the use of the information contained herein. Table of Contents 1. The field of CEP .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1. What is the CEP? ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2. The uses of CEP ........................................................................................................................ 2 1.3. Surveying the CEP langscape ....................................................................................................... 2 1.4. We're not in 1950s any more, -
2019 Stateof the Software Supply Chain
2019 State of the Software Supply Chain The 5th annual report on global open source software development presented by in partnership with supported by Table of Contents Introduction................................................................................. 3 CHAPTER 4: Exemplary Dev Teams .................................26 4.1 The Enterprise Continues to Accelerate ...........................27 Infographic .................................................................................. 4 4.2 Analysis of 12,000 Large Enterprises ................................27 CHAPTER 1: Global Supply of Open Source .................5 4.3 Component Releases Make Up 85% of a Modern Application......................................... 28 1.1 Supply of Open Source is Massive ...........................................6 4.4 Characteristics of Exemplary 1.2 Supply of Open Source is Expanding Rapidly ..................7 Development Teams ................................................................... 29 1.3 Suppliers, Components and Releases ..................................7 4.5 Rewards for Exemplary Development Teams ..............34 CHAPTER 2: Global Demand for Open Source ..........8 CHAPTER 5: The Changing Landscape .......................35 2.1 Accelerating Demand for 5.1 Deming Emphasizes Building Quality In ...........................36 Open Source Libraries .....................................................................9 5.2 Tracing Vulnerable Component Release 2.2 Automated Pipelines and Downloads Across Software Supply Chains -
The Machine That Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family
Khomtchouk et al. OPINION NOTE The Machine that Builds Itself: How the Strengths of Lisp Family Languages Facilitate Building Complex and Flexible Bioinformatic Models Bohdan B. Khomtchouk1*, Edmund Weitz2 and Claes Wahlestedt1 *Correspondence: [email protected] Abstract 1Center for Therapeutic Innovation and Department of We address the need for expanding the presence of the Lisp family of Psychiatry and Behavioral programming languages in bioinformatics and computational biology research. Sciences, University of Miami Languages of this family, like Common Lisp, Scheme, or Clojure, facilitate the Miller School of Medicine, 1120 NW 14th ST, Miami, FL, USA creation of powerful and flexible software models that are required for complex 33136 and rapidly evolving domains like biology. We will point out several important key Full list of author information is features that distinguish languages of the Lisp family from other programming available at the end of the article languages and we will explain how these features can aid researchers in becoming more productive and creating better code. We will also show how these features make these languages ideal tools for artificial intelligence and machine learning applications. We will specifically stress the advantages of domain-specific languages (DSL): languages which are specialized to a particular area and thus not only facilitate easier research problem formulation, but also aid in the establishment of standards and best programming practices as applied to the specific research field at hand. DSLs are particularly easy to build in Common Lisp, the most comprehensive Lisp dialect, which is commonly referred to as the “programmable programming language.” We are convinced that Lisp grants programmers unprecedented power to build increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems that may ultimately transform machine learning and AI research in bioinformatics and computational biology. -
A Formal Component-Based Software Engineering Approach for Developing Trustworthy Systems
A FORMAL COMPONENT-BASED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING APPROACH FOR DEVELOPING TRUSTWORTHY SYSTEMS MUBARAK SAMI MOHAMMAD A THESIS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE AND SOFTWARE ENGINEERING PRESENTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (COMPUTER SCIENCE) CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY MONTREAL´ ,QUEBEC´ ,CANADA APRIL 2009 °c MUBARAK SAMI MOHAMMAD, 2009 CONCORDIA UNIVERSITY School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Mr. Mubarak Sami Mohammad Entitled: A Formal Component-Based Software Engineering Approach for Developing Trustworthy Systems and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy (Computer Science) (Computer Science) complies with the regulations of this University and meets the accepted standards with re- spect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: Chair Dr. External Examiner Dr. Nicholas Graham External to Program Dr. Jamal Bentahar Examiner Dr. Joey Paquet Examiner Dr. Juergen Rilling Supervisor Dr. Vasu Alagar Co-supervisor Dr. Olga Ormandjieva Approved Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director 20 Dr. Robin A.L. Drew, Dean Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Abstract A Formal Component-Based Software Engineering Approach for Developing Trustworthy Systems Mubarak Sami Mohammad, Ph.D. Concordia University, 2009 Software systems are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, affecting the way we experience the world. Embedded software systems, especially those used in smart devices, have be- come an essential constituent of the technological infrastructure of modern societies. Such systems, in order to be trusted in society, must be proved to be trustworthy. Trustworthiness is a composite non-functional property that implies safety, timeliness, security, availability, and reliability. -
Comparative Studies of Programming Languages; Course Lecture Notes
Comparative Studies of Programming Languages, COMP6411 Lecture Notes, Revision 1.9 Joey Paquet Serguei A. Mokhov (Eds.) August 5, 2010 arXiv:1007.2123v6 [cs.PL] 4 Aug 2010 2 Preface Lecture notes for the Comparative Studies of Programming Languages course, COMP6411, taught at the Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science, Concordia University, Montreal, QC, Canada. These notes include a compiled book of primarily related articles from the Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia [24], as well as Comparative Programming Languages book [7] and other resources, including our own. The original notes were compiled by Dr. Paquet [14] 3 4 Contents 1 Brief History and Genealogy of Programming Languages 7 1.1 Introduction . 7 1.1.1 Subreferences . 7 1.2 History . 7 1.2.1 Pre-computer era . 7 1.2.2 Subreferences . 8 1.2.3 Early computer era . 8 1.2.4 Subreferences . 8 1.2.5 Modern/Structured programming languages . 9 1.3 References . 19 2 Programming Paradigms 21 2.1 Introduction . 21 2.2 History . 21 2.2.1 Low-level: binary, assembly . 21 2.2.2 Procedural programming . 22 2.2.3 Object-oriented programming . 23 2.2.4 Declarative programming . 27 3 Program Evaluation 33 3.1 Program analysis and translation phases . 33 3.1.1 Front end . 33 3.1.2 Back end . 34 3.2 Compilation vs. interpretation . 34 3.2.1 Compilation . 34 3.2.2 Interpretation . 36 3.2.3 Subreferences . 37 3.3 Type System . 38 3.3.1 Type checking . 38 3.4 Memory management . -
Aspect Oriented Software Development and PHP Aspect Oriented Software Development and PHP
FEATURE Aspect Oriented Software Development and PHP Aspect Oriented Software Development and PHP This article provides an introduction into the popular paradigm of aspect-oriented software development (AOSD). It includes a multitude of practical examples, provides a view of how to objectify an abstract approach like AOSD, and helps the reader easily grasp its essence and advantages. The article is primarily intended for programmers working with PHP. Its aim is to demonstrate a way of applying AOSD in PHP-based projects that already exist. by DMITRY SHEIKO he object oriented approach to programming PHP: 4.xx has been popular for a number of years. While its advantages are not often obvious for short TO DISCUSS THIS ARTICLE VISIT: term projects, major development simply cannot do without it. Object-oriented programming http://forum.phparch.com/297 Tlanguages provide the tools necessary to present business logic in a demonstrable form. Today, UML Class diagrams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_Modeling_Language) can architecture is not an easy task—unless you are able even be used to develop system logic. to successfully implement methods described in Martin Demonstrable business logic makes it easier for Fowler’s book, Refactoring: Improving the Design of new participants to join in, and helps to save time for Existing Code. developers that come back into the project at later stages. Yet, even now, one can not find encapsulated It also reduces the number of mistakes, considerably. functionality (crosscutting concerns) in a number Is implementing an object-oriented approach, alone, of various classes (logging, caching, synchronizing, enough to develop the demonstrable business logic? tracing, monitoring, debugging, security checking, Obviously not. -
More Efficient Serialization and RMI for Java
To appear in: Concurrency: Practice & Experience, Vol. 11, 1999. More Ecient Serialization and RMI for Java Michael Philippsen, Bernhard Haumacher, and Christian Nester Computer Science Department, University of Karlsruhe Am Fasanengarten 5, 76128 Karlsruhe, Germany [phlippjhaumajnester]@ira.u ka.de http://wwwipd.ira.uka.de/JavaPa rty/ Abstract. In current Java implementations, Remote Metho d Invo ca- tion RMI is to o slow, esp ecially for high p erformance computing. RMI is designed for wide-area and high-latency networks, it is based on a slow ob ject serialization, and it do es not supp ort high-p erformance commu- nication networks. The pap er demonstrates that a much faster drop-in RMI and an ecient drop-in serialization can b e designed and implemented completely in Java without any native co de. Moreover, the re-designed RMI supp orts non- TCP/IP communication networks, even with heterogeneous transp ort proto cols. We demonstrate that for high p erformance computing some of the ocial serialization's generality can and should b e traded for sp eed. Asaby-pro duct, a b enchmark collection for RMI is presented. On PCs connected through Ethernet, the b etter serialization and the improved RMI save a median of 45 maximum of 71 of the runtime for some set of arguments. On our Myrinet-based ParaStation network a cluster of DEC Alphas wesave a median of 85 maximum of 96, compared to standard RMI, standard serialization, and Fast Ethernet; a remote metho d invo cation runs as fast as 80 s round trip time, compared to ab out 1.5 ms. -
Programming Languages
Lecture 19 / Chapter 13 COSC1300/ITSC 1401/BCIS 1405 12/5/2004 Lecture 19 / Chapter 13 COSC1300/ITSC 1401/BCIS 1405 12/5/2004 General Items: Computer Program • Lab? Ok? • Read the extra credits • A series of instructions that direct a computer to perform tasks • Need to come to class • Such as? Who is the programmer? • Have a quiz / no books / use notes -> What is the big idea • School is almost over • Programming language is a series of rules for writing the instructions • • There are hundreds of computer programs – need-based! Reading Materials: Programming language • - Two basic types: Low- and high-level programming languages Miscellaneous: o Low-level: Programming language that is machine-dependent ° Must be run on specific machines o High-level: Language that is machine-independent ° Can be run on different types of machines Programming Language Low Level High Level Machine Assembly Language Language Procedural Nonprocedural Remember: Ultimately, everything must be converted to the machine language! Object Oriented F.Farahmand 1 / 12 File: lec14chap13f04.doc F.Farahmand 2 / 12 File: lec14chap13f04.doc Lecture 19 / Chapter 13 COSC1300/ITSC 1401/BCIS 1405 12/5/2004 Lecture 19 / Chapter 13 COSC1300/ITSC 1401/BCIS 1405 12/5/2004 Categories of programming languages o Nonprocedural language -> Programmer specifies only what the - Machine language program should accomplish; it does not explain how o Only language computer understands directly - Forth-generation language - Assembly language o Syntax is closer to human language than that -
Course Outlines
COURSE NAME PYTHON PROGRAMMING OVERVIEW OBJECTIVES Python is a general-purpose, versatile, and popular How Python works and its place in the world of programming language. It is a great first language programming languages; to work with and because it is concise and easy to read, and it is also manipulate strings; to perform math operations; to a good language to have in any programmer’s stack work with Python sequences; to collect user input as it can be used for everything from web and output results; flow control processing; to write development to software development and scientific to, and read from, files; to write functions; to handle applications. exception; and work with dates and times. WHO SHOULD ATTEND PRE-REQUISITES Students new to the language. Some experience with other programming languages DELIVERY METHOD DURATION Instructor-led virtual course 5 days (40 hours) COURSE OUTLINE PYTHON INSTALLATION LOOPS Python Distributions (ActivePython, Anaconda, For(each) loop MiniConda) Absence of traditional for (i=0, i<n, i++) loop Additional Modules (Pip, conda, easy_install) Basic Examples with foreach loop PYTHON INTRODUCTION & BASICS Emulating Traditional for loops using range(n) The Python interpreter While Loops Working with command-line/IDE FUNCTIONS Python Data Types Def Keyword Built in operators, functions and methods Functions without args Data and type introspection basics: type (), dir() Functions with fixed num of args Syntax (Blocks and indentation) Functions with variable number of args and default Concepts (Scope, -
Reflecting on an Existing Programming Language
Vol. 6, No. 9, Special Issue: TOOLS EUROPE 2007, October 2007 Reflecting on an Existing Programming Language Andreas Leitner, Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland Patrick Eugster, Dept. of Computer Science, Purdue University, USA Manuel Oriol, Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland Ilinca Ciupa, Dept. of Computer Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland Reflection has proven to be a valuable asset for programming languages, es- pecially object-oriented ones, by promoting adaptability and extensibility of pro- grams. With more and more applications exceeding the boundary of a single address space, reflection comes in very handy for instance for performing con- formance tests dynamically. The precise incentives and thus mechanisms for reflection vary strongly between its incarnations, depending on the semantics of the considered programming lan- guage, the architecture of its runtime environment, safety and security concerns, etc. Another strongly influential factor is legacy, i.e., the point in time at which the corresponding reflection mechanisms are added to the language. This parameter tends to dictate the feasible breadth of the features offered by an implementation of reflection. This paper describes a pragmatic approach to reflection, consisting in adding introspection to an existing object-oriented programming language a posteriori, i.e., without extending the programming language, compiler, or runtime environ- ment in any specific manner. The approach consists in a pre-compiler generating specific code for types which are to be made introspectable, and an API through which this code is accessed. We present two variants of our approach, namely a homogeneous approach (for type systems with a universal root type) and a heterogeneous approach (without universal root type), and the corresponding generators.