The Practice of Programming
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Load more
Recommended publications
-
UNIX and Computer Science Spreading UNIX Around the World: by Ronda Hauben an Interview with John Lions
Winter/Spring 1994 Celebrating 25 Years of UNIX Volume 6 No 1 "I believe all significant software movements start at the grassroots level. UNIX, after all, was not developed by the President of AT&T." Kouichi Kishida, UNIX Review, Feb., 1987 UNIX and Computer Science Spreading UNIX Around the World: by Ronda Hauben An Interview with John Lions [Editor's Note: This year, 1994, is the 25th anniversary of the [Editor's Note: Looking through some magazines in a local invention of UNIX in 1969 at Bell Labs. The following is university library, I came upon back issues of UNIX Review from a "Work In Progress" introduced at the USENIX from the mid 1980's. In these issues were articles by or inter- Summer 1993 Conference in Cincinnati, Ohio. This article is views with several of the pioneers who developed UNIX. As intended as a contribution to a discussion about the sig- part of my research for a paper about the history and devel- nificance of the UNIX breakthrough and the lessons to be opment of the early days of UNIX, I felt it would be helpful learned from it for making the next step forward.] to be able to ask some of these pioneers additional questions The Multics collaboration (1964-1968) had been created to based on the events and developments described in the UNIX "show that general-purpose, multiuser, timesharing systems Review Interviews. were viable." Based on the results of research gained at MIT Following is an interview conducted via E-mail with John using the MIT Compatible Time-Sharing System (CTSS), Lions, who wrote A Commentary on the UNIX Operating AT&T and GE agreed to work with MIT to build a "new System describing Version 6 UNIX to accompany the "UNIX hardware, a new operating system, a new file system, and a Operating System Source Code Level 6" for the students in new user interface." Though the project proceeded slowly his operating systems class at the University of New South and it took years to develop Multics, Doug Comer, a Profes- Wales in Australia. -
Reasoning About Programs Need: Definition of Works/Correct: a Specification (And Bugs) but Programs Fail All the Time
Good programs, broken programs? Goal: program works (does not fail) Reasoning about Programs Need: definition of works/correct: a specification (and bugs) But programs fail all the time. Why? A brief interlude on 1. Misuse of your code: caller did not meet assumptions specifications, assertions, and debugging 2. Errors in your code: mistake causes wrong computation 3. Unpredictable external problems: • Out of memory, missing file, network down, … • Plan for these problems, fail gracefully. 4. Wrong or ambiguous specification, implemented correctly Largely based on material from University of Washington CSE 331 A Bug's Life, ca. 1947 A Bug's Life Defect: a mistake in the code Think 10 per 1000 lines of industry code. We're human. -- Grace Hopper Error: incorrect computation Because of defect, but not guaranteed to be visible Failure: observable error -- program violates its specification Crash, wrong output, unresponsive, corrupt data, etc. Time / code distance between stages varies: • tiny (<second to minutes / one line of code) • or enormous (years to decades to never / millons of lines of code) "How to build correct code" Testing 1. Design and Verify Make correctness more likely or provable from the start. • Can show that a program has an error. 2. Program Defensively • Can show a point where an error causes a failure. Plan for defects and errors. • Cannot show the error that caused the failure. • make testing more likely to reveal errors as failures • Cannot show the defect that caused the error. • make debugging failures easier 3. Test and Validate Try to cause failures. • Can improve confidence that the sorts of errors/failures • provide evidence of defects/errors targeted by the tests are less likely in programs similar • or increase confidence of their absence to the tests. -
Jül Spez 0467.Pdf
EMULATING SIMULA IN TURBO PASCAL by Morton John Canty EMULATING SIMULA IN TURBO PASCAL M. J. Canty 1. lntroduction Although the computer language SIMULA /1,2/ is now over 20 years old it remains an excellent general purpose programming tool as well as a popular and powerfuf simulation language, the purpose for which it was originally developed. SIMULA is an extension of ALGOL 60, which it contains as a true subset, and its advanced concepts have served as a model for modern object-oriented languages such as SMALLTALK. The properties which make SIMULA especially suitable for simulation tasks are 1. a hierarchic cfass concept with inheritance, 2. sophisticated list handfing facilities and 3. concurrent programming capability. Of these three, the most essential property to allow for programming of discrete time simulation tasks is the third one, concurrent programming. By this is meant the ability to sustain parallel autonomous entities (called processes or co-routines) in memory. Allowing an arbitrary number of such processes to interact with each other along a time axis forms the basis of SIMULA's model for discrete time simulation. Although virtually all major programming languages have been implemented in one form or another on personal computers, SIMULA is a notable exception. Perhaps the main reason for this is that, while enjoying great popularity in Europe, SIMULA is not as well known on the North American continent. Pascal belongs to the same Afgol famify as SIMULA, and the dialect Turbo Pascal of the firm Borland Interna tional has become one bf the most wide spread high-levef languages for MS-DOS personal computers. -
Shared Name Spaces
Shared Name Spaces Geoff Collyer (geoff@collyer.net) Russ Cox ([email protected]) Bruce Ellis ([email protected]) Fariborz “Skip” Tavakkolian ([email protected]) ABSTRACT One of the strengths of the Plan 9 operating system[4] is its ability to multiplex name spaces efficiently. Another key Plan 9 concept is the 9P[5] file protocol, and its uniform application to all resources – stored files and devices. The Shared Name Space system is a technique to dynamically manage name spaces exported by a group of users into an aggregate name space, and reflect it back to each group member. The net effect is a mechanism for providing a virtual network service that competes favorably with peer-to- peer networks, or central-storage file sharing and has advantages over both. Although currently the only resources that are sharable are stored files, the system allows sharing of other types of resources in the future. These would include mouse, keyboard, and display, making services such as remote desktop access or on-line collaboration and conferencing possible. The RangboomTM Adhoc Virtual Networks1 service is a commercial endeavor based on this technology. It provides remote file access and file sharing service to broadband Internet users. It is initially targeted for devices running Microsoft Windows, Linux and Mac OS X. 1. Preface The problem that Shared Name Space addresses is how a typical user is able to securely access his/her resources or discover and use resources belonging to a group over the Internet. As the adoption of broadband access increases, as the ratio of computing devices per user increases and as the Internet users become more savvy, there is an increasing need for and expectation of ubiquitous access to all resources on all personal electronics, from any other. -
Acme: a User Interface for Programmers Rob Pike [email protected]−Labs.Com
Acme: A User Interface for Programmers Rob Pike [email protected]−labs.com ABSTRACT A hybrid of window system, shell, and editor, Acme gives text-oriented applications a clean, expressive, and consistent style of interaction. Tradi tional window systems support interactive client programs and offer libraries of pre-defined operations such as pop-up menus and buttons to promote a consistent user interface among the clients. Acme instead pro vides its clients with a fixed user interface and simple conventions to encourage its uniform use. Clients access the facilities of Acme through a file system interface; Acme is in part a file server that exports device-like files that may be manipulated to access and control the contents of its win dows. Written in a concurrent programming language, Acme is structured as a set of communicating processes that neatly subdivide the various aspects of its tasks: display management, input, file server, and so on. Acme attaches distinct functions to the three mouse buttons: the left selects text; the middle executes textual commands; and the right com bines context search and file opening functions to integrate the various applications and files in the system. Acme works well enough to have developed a community that uses it exclusively. Although Acme discourages the traditional style of interaction based on typescript windowsߞteletypesߞits users find Acmeߣs other ser vices render typescripts obsolete. History and motivation The usual typescript style of interaction with Unix and its relatives is an old one. The typescriptߞan intermingling of textual commands and their outputߞoriginates with the scrolls of paper on teletypes. -
Introduction to Concurrent Programming
Introduction to Concurrent Programming Rob Pike Computing Sciences Research Center Bell Labs Lucent Technologies [email protected] February 2, 2000 1 Overview The world runs in parallel, but our usual model of software does not. Programming languages are sequential. This mismatch makes it hard to write systems software that provides the interface between a computer (or user) and the world. Solutions: processes, threads, concurrency, semaphores, spin locks, message-passing. But how do we use these things? Real problem: need an approach to writing concurrent software that guides our design and implementation. We will present our model for designing concurrent software. It’s been used in several languages for over a decade, producing everything from symbolic algebra packages to window systems. This course is not about parallel algorithms or using multiprocessors to run programs faster. It is about using the power of processes and communication to design elegant, responsive, reliable systems. 2 History (Biased towards Systems) Dijkstra: guarded commands, 1976. Hoare: Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP), (paper) 1978. Run multiple communicating guarded command sets in parallel. Hoare: CSP Book, 1985. Addition of channels to the model, rather than directly talking to processes. Cardelli and Pike: Squeak, 1983. Application of CSP model to user interfaces. Pike: Concurrent Window System, (paper) 1988. Application of Squeak approach to systems software. Pike: Newsqueak, 1989. Interpreted language; used to write toy window system. Winterbottom: Alef, 1994. True compiled concurrent language, used to write production systems software. Mullender: Thread library, 1999. Retrofit to C for general usability. 3 Other models exist Our approach is not the only way. -
UTF-8-Plan9-Paper
Hello World or Kαληµε´ρα κο´σµε or Rob Pike Ken Thompson AT&T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey 07974 ABSTRACT Plan 9 from Bell Labs has recently been converted from ASCII to an ASCII- compatible variant of Unicode, a 16-bit character set. In this paper we explain the rea- sons for the change, describe the character set and representation we chose, and present the programming models and software changes that support the new text format. Although we stopped short of full internationalizationÐfor example, system error mes- sages are in Unixese, not JapaneseÐwe believe Plan 9 is the first system to treat the rep- resentation of all major languages on a uniform, equal footing throughout all its software. Introduction The world is multilingual but most computer systems are based on English and ASCII. The release of Plan 9 [Pike90], a new distributed operating system from Bell Laboratories, seemed a good occasion to correct this chauvinism. It is easier to make such deep changes when building new systems than by refit- ting old ones. The ANSI C standard [ANSIC] contains some guidance on the matter of ‘wide’ and ‘multi-byte’ characters but falls far short of solving the myriad associated problems. We could find no literature on how to convert a system to larger character sets, although some individual programs had been converted. This paper reports what we discovered as we explored the problem of representing multilingual text at all levels of an operating system, from the file system and kernel through the applications and up to the window sys- tem and display. -
Tiny Tools Gerard J
Tiny Tools Gerard J. Holzmann Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology Many programmers like the convenience of integrated development environments (IDEs) when developing code. The best examples are Microsoft’s Visual Studio for Windows and Eclipse for Unix-like systems, which have both been around for many years. You get all the features you need to build and debug software, and lots of other things that you will probably never realize are also there. You can use all these features without having to know very much about what goes on behind the screen. And there’s the rub. If you’re like me, you want to know precisely what goes on behind the screen, and you want to be able to control every bit of it. The IDEs can sometimes feel as if they are taking over every last corner of your computer, leaving you wondering how much bigger your machine would have to be to make things run a little more smoothly. So what follows is for those of us who don’t use IDEs. It’s for the bare metal programmers, who prefer to write code using their own screen editor, and who do everything else with command-line tools. There are no real conveniences that you need to give up to work this way, but what you gain is a better understanding your development environment, and the control to change, extend, or improve it whenever you find better ways to do things. Bare Metal Programming Many developers who write embedded software work in precisely this way. -
A Domain-Specific Embedded Language for Probabilistic
AN ABSTRACT OF THE THESIS OF Steven Kollmansberger for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science presented on December 12, 2005. Title: A Domain-Specific Embedded Language for Probabilistic Programming Abstract approved: Martin Erwig Functional programming is concerned with referential transparency, that is, given a certain function and its parameter, that the result will always be the same. However, it seems that this is violated in applications involving uncertainty, such as rolling a dice. This thesis defines the background of probabilistic programming and domain-specific languages, and builds on these ideas to construct a domain- specific embedded language (DSEL) for probabilistic programming in a purely functional language. This DSEL is then applied in a real-world setting to develop an application in use by the Center for Gene Research at Oregon State University. The process and results of this development are discussed. c Copyright by Steven Kollmansberger December 12, 2005 All Rights Reserved A Domain-Specific Embedded Language for Probabilistic Programming by Steven Kollmansberger A THESIS submitted to Oregon State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Presented December 12, 2005 Commencement June 2006 Master of Science thesis of Steven Kollmansberger presented on December 12, 2005 APPROVED: Major Professor, representing Computer Science Director of the School of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Dean of the Graduate School I understand that my thesis will become part of the permanent collection of Ore- gon State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my thesis to any reader upon request. Steven Kollmansberger, Author ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This thesis would not be possible without the ideas, drive and commitment of many people. -
The AWK Programming Language
The Programming ~" ·. Language PolyAWK- The Toolbox Language· Auru:o V. AHo BRIAN W.I<ERNIGHAN PETER J. WEINBERGER TheAWK4 Programming~ Language TheAWI(. Programming~ Language ALFRED V. AHo BRIAN w. KERNIGHAN PETER J. WEINBERGER AT& T Bell Laboratories Murray Hill, New Jersey A ADDISON-WESLEY•• PUBLISHING COMPANY Reading, Massachusetts • Menlo Park, California • New York Don Mills, Ontario • Wokingham, England • Amsterdam • Bonn Sydney • Singapore • Tokyo • Madrid • Bogota Santiago • San Juan This book is in the Addison-Wesley Series in Computer Science Michael A. Harrison Consulting Editor Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Aho, Alfred V. The AWK programming language. Includes index. I. AWK (Computer program language) I. Kernighan, Brian W. II. Weinberger, Peter J. III. Title. QA76.73.A95A35 1988 005.13'3 87-17566 ISBN 0-201-07981-X This book was typeset in Times Roman and Courier by the authors, using an Autologic APS-5 phototypesetter and a DEC VAX 8550 running the 9th Edition of the UNIX~ operating system. -~- ATs.T Copyright c 1988 by Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy ing, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Printed in the United States of America. Published simultaneously in Canada. UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T. DEFGHIJ-AL-898 PREFACE Computer users spend a lot of time doing simple, mechanical data manipula tion - changing the format of data, checking its validity, finding items with some property, adding up numbers, printing reports, and the like. -
Sequence Alignment/Map Format Specification
Sequence Alignment/Map Format Specification The SAM/BAM Format Specification Working Group 3 Jun 2021 The master version of this document can be found at https://github.com/samtools/hts-specs. This printing is version 53752fa from that repository, last modified on the date shown above. 1 The SAM Format Specification SAM stands for Sequence Alignment/Map format. It is a TAB-delimited text format consisting of a header section, which is optional, and an alignment section. If present, the header must be prior to the alignments. Header lines start with `@', while alignment lines do not. Each alignment line has 11 mandatory fields for essential alignment information such as mapping position, and variable number of optional fields for flexible or aligner specific information. This specification is for version 1.6 of the SAM and BAM formats. Each SAM and BAMfilemay optionally specify the version being used via the @HD VN tag. For full version history see Appendix B. Unless explicitly specified elsewhere, all fields are encoded using 7-bit US-ASCII 1 in using the POSIX / C locale. Regular expressions listed use the POSIX / IEEE Std 1003.1 extended syntax. 1.1 An example Suppose we have the following alignment with bases in lowercase clipped from the alignment. Read r001/1 and r001/2 constitute a read pair; r003 is a chimeric read; r004 represents a split alignment. Coor 12345678901234 5678901234567890123456789012345 ref AGCATGTTAGATAA**GATAGCTGTGCTAGTAGGCAGTCAGCGCCAT +r001/1 TTAGATAAAGGATA*CTG +r002 aaaAGATAA*GGATA +r003 gcctaAGCTAA +r004 ATAGCT..............TCAGC -r003 ttagctTAGGC -r001/2 CAGCGGCAT The corresponding SAM format is:2 1Charset ANSI X3.4-1968 as defined in RFC1345. -
The Evolution of the Unix Time-Sharing System*
The Evolution of the Unix Time-sharing System* Dennis M. Ritchie Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ, 07974 ABSTRACT This paper presents a brief history of the early development of the Unix operating system. It concentrates on the evolution of the file system, the process-control mechanism, and the idea of pipelined commands. Some attention is paid to social conditions during the development of the system. NOTE: *This paper was first presented at the Language Design and Programming Methodology conference at Sydney, Australia, September 1979. The conference proceedings were published as Lecture Notes in Computer Science #79: Language Design and Programming Methodology, Springer-Verlag, 1980. This rendition is based on a reprinted version appearing in AT&T Bell Laboratories Technical Journal 63 No. 6 Part 2, October 1984, pp. 1577-93. Introduction During the past few years, the Unix operating system has come into wide use, so wide that its very name has become a trademark of Bell Laboratories. Its important characteristics have become known to many people. It has suffered much rewriting and tinkering since the first publication describing it in 1974 [1], but few fundamental changes. However, Unix was born in 1969 not 1974, and the account of its development makes a little-known and perhaps instructive story. This paper presents a technical and social history of the evolution of the system. Origins For computer science at Bell Laboratories, the period 1968-1969 was somewhat unsettled. The main reason for this was the slow, though clearly inevitable, withdrawal of the Labs from the Multics project. To the Labs computing community as a whole, the problem was the increasing obviousness of the failure of Multics to deliver promptly any sort of usable system, let alone the panacea envisioned earlier.