DOCSLIB.ORG

Programming Languages

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Programming Languages ◦ ◦◦◦ TECHNISCHE UNIVERSITAT¨ MUNCHEN¨ ◦◦◦◦ ◦ ◦ ◦◦◦ ◦◦◦◦ ¨ ¨ ◦ ◦◦ FAKULTAT FUR INFORMATIK Programming Languages Multiple Inheritance Dr. Axel Simon and Dr. Michael Petter Winter term 2012 Multiple Inheritance 1 / 29 Outline Inheritance Principles 1 Interface Inheritance 2 Implementation Inheritance 3 Liskov Substition Principle and Shapes C++ Object Heap Layout 1 Basics 2 Single-Inheritance Excursion: Linearization 3 Virtual Methods 1 Ambiguous common parents 2 Principles of Linearization C++ Multiple Parents Heap Layout 3 Linearization algorithm 1 Multiple-Inheritance 2 Virtual Methods 3 Common Parents Discussion & Learning Outcomes Multiple Inheritance 2 / 29 “Wouldn’t it be nice to inherit from several parents?” Multiple Inheritance Inheritance Principles 3 / 29 Interface vs. Implementation inheritance The classic motivation for inheritance is implementation inheritance Code reusage Child specializes parents, replacing particular methods with custom ones Parent acts as library of common behaviours Implemented in languages like C++ or Lisp Code sharing in interface inheritance inverts this relation Behaviour contract Child provides methods, with signatures predetermined by the parent Parent acts as generic code frame with room for customization Implemented in languages like Java or C# Multiple Inheritance Inheritance Principles 4 / 29 Interface Inheritance DropDownList refresh() ActionObserver MyDDL changed() changed() Multiple Inheritance Inheritance Principles 5 / 29 Implementation inheritance PowerShovel FrontLoader actuate() actuate() House actuate() Bulldozer Undercarriage moveTo(x,y) Tracks Wheels moveTo(x,y) moveTo(x,y) Multiple Inheritance Inheritance Principles 6 / 29 Excursion: LSP and Square-Rect-Problem The Liskov Substitution Principle Functions that use pointers or references to base classes must be able to use objects of derived classes without knowing it. class Rectangle{ Rectangle r= void setWidth(intw){ this.w=w;} new Square(2); void setHeight(inth){ this.h=h;} r.setWidth(3); void getWidth(){ returnw;} r.setHeight(4); void getHeight(){ returnh;} assertr.getHeight()* } r.getWidth()==12; class Square extends Rectangle{ ! Behavioural assumptions void setWidth(intw){ this.w=w;h=w;} void setHeight(inth){ this.h=h;w=h;} } Multiple Inheritance Inheritance Principles 7 / 29 “So how do we lay out objects in heap anyway?” Multiple Inheritance Standard Object Heap Layout 8 / 29 Object layout classA{ int a; int f(int); }; classB: publicA{ int b; int g(int); }; C classC: publicB{ int a int c; int h(int); int b }; int c ... C c; c.g(42); %c= alloca %class.C %1= getelementptr %c, i640, i320 %2= call i32 @_g(%1, i32 42) ; g is statically known Multiple Inheritance Standard Object Heap Layout Object layout & inheritance 9 / 29 Object layout – virtual methods classA{ int a; virtual int f(int); virtual int g(int); virtual int h(int); }; classB: publicA{ int b; int g(int); }; C classC: publicB{ vptr A::f int c; int h(int); int a B::g }; int b ... C::h int c C c; c.g(42); %c.vptr= getelementptr %c, i640, i640 ; select vptr-entry %1= load %c.vptr ; dereference vptr %2= getelementptr %1, i641 ; select g()-entry %3= load %2 ; dereference g()-entry %4= call i32 %3(%c, i32 42) Multiple Inheritance Standard Object Heap Layout Virtual Methods 10 / 29 “So how do we include several parent objects?” Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance 11 / 29 Multiple Base Classes classA{ int a; int f(int); }; classB{ int b; int g(int); }; A int a B classC: publicA, publicB{ } int c; int h(int); B int b }; ... C int c C c; c.g(42); %c= alloca %class.C %1= getelementptr %c, i640, i321 ; select B-offset in C %2= call i32 @_g(%1, i32 42) ; g is statically known ! getelementptr hides the ∆B here! Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Multiple base classes in layout 12 / 29 Ambiguities classA{ void f(int); }; classB{ void f(int); }; classC: publicA, public B {}; C* pc; pc->f(42); ! Which method is called? Solution I: Explicit qualification Solution II: Automagical resolution pc->A::f(42); Idea: The Compiler introduces a pc->B::f(42); linear order on the nodes of the inheritance graph Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Ambiguities 13 / 29 Linearization Inheritance Relation H Multiplicity M Defined by ancestors. Defined by the order of multiple ancestors. Principles 1 An inheritance mechanism (maps Object to sequence of ancestors) must follow the inheritance partial order H 2 The inheritance is a uniform mechanism, and its searches (! total order) apply identically for all object properties (!fields/methods) 3 In any case the inheritance relation H overrides the multiplicity M 4 When there is no contradiction between multiplicity M and inheritance H, the inheritance search must follow the partial order H [ M. Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Linearization 14 / 29 Linearization algorithm candidates Depth-First Search W ABWC ! Principle 1 inheritance is violated B C A Breadth-First Search W ABCWD ! Principle 1 inheritance is violated D B C A Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Linearization 15 / 29 Linearization algorithm candidates Reverse Postorder Rightmost DFS W ABFDCEGHW G Linear extension of inheritance relation X D EF H B C A Reverse Postorder Rightmost DFS FG ABCDGEF ! But principle 4 multiplicity is violated! B D E C A Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Linearization 16 / 29 Linearization Algorithm Idea [Ducournau and Habib(1987)] Successively perform Reverse Postorder Rightmost DFS and refine inheritance graph G with contradiction arcs. The reservoir set of potential contradiction arcs CA is initially M, while the inheritance graph G starts from H. do 1 search RPDFSG 2 CA fcontradiction arcs of upper searchg \ M 3 G G [ CA; while (CA 6= ;) ^ (search violates H [M) Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Linearization 17 / 29 Linearization vs. explicit qualification Linearization Qualification No switch/duplexer code More flexible, fine-grained necessary Linearization choices may be No explicit naming of qualifiers awkward or unexpected Unique super reference Languages with automatic linearization exist CLOS Common Lisp Object System Prerequisite for ! Mixins Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Linearization 18 / 29 Virtual Tables for Multiple Inheritance classA{ int a; virtual int f(int); }; classB{ int b; virtual int f(int); virtual int g(int); vptr 0 B A RTTI }; } int a C::f classC: publicA, publicB{ vptr B int c; int f(int); B int b RTTI }; C::Bf ... C int c B::g C c; B* pb=&c; pb->f(42); %1= getelementptr %c, i640, i321, i640 ;select B-offset in C %2= load i32 %1 ;load vptr-entry %3= load i32 %2 ;load f()-thunk-entry %5= call i32 %3(%1, i32 42) Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Virtual Table 19 / 29 Virtual table A Virtual Table consists of different parts: 0 1 the constant offset of an objects heap RTTI representation to its parents heap C::f representation B RTTI 2 a pointer to a runtime type information C::Bf object (not relevant for us) B::g 3 method pointers of the overwritten methods for resolving virtual methods Several virtual tables are joined when multiple inheritance is used Casts! The vptr field in each object points at the beginning of the first virtual method pointer Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Virtual Table 20 / 29 Virtual table 2 Remarks: The virtual table is created at compile time and filled with offsets, virtual method pointers and thunks ∆B is the relative position of the B part in C, and known at compile time. This entry is primarily used for dynamic casts: C c; B*b=&c; void*v= dynamic_cast<void*>(b); printf("%d, %d, %d",&c,b,v); Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Virtual Table 21 / 29 Virtual table 3 Remarks: thunks are trampoline methods, delegating the virtual method to its original implementation with an adapted this-reference C c; B*b=&c; b->f(42); /* f(int) provided by C::f(int), addressing its variables relative to C */ B-in-C-virtual table entry for f(int) is the thunk _f(int), adding ∆B to the this parameter define i32 @__f(%this, i32 %i){ %1= getelementptr %this, i64 -1, i320, i320 %2= tail call i32 @_f(%1, i32 %i) ret i32 %2 } Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Virtual Table 22 / 29 “But what if there are common ancestors?” Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Virtual Table 23 / 29 Distinguished base classes classL{ int l; virtual void f(int); }; classA: publicL{ 0 int a; void f(int); RTTI vptr }; A::f L int l classB: publicL{ B B int b; void f(int); } A int a RTTI }; vptr B::f classC: publicA, publicB{ L int l int c; B int b }; ... C int c C c; L* pl=&c; pl->f(42); C* pc=(C*)pl; ! Ambiguity! L* pl=(A*)&c; C* pc=(C*)(A*)pl; Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Distinguished base classes 24 / 29 Common base classes classW{ W int w; virtual void f(int); 0 virtual void g(int); RTTI vptr A::f virtual void h(int); C::h }; A int a W- B classA: public virtualW{ vptr B int a; void f(int); RTTI B int b B::g }; W classB: public virtualW{ C int c RTTI int b; void g(int); A::Wf vptr }; B::Wg W int w classC: publicA, publicB{ C::Wh int c; void h(int); }; ! Offsets to virtual base ... ! Ambiguities C* pc; e.g. overwriting f in A and B pc->f(42); ! Casting! ((W*)pc)->h(42); W* pw=&c; ((A*)pc)->f(42); C* pc=(C*)pw; Multiple Inheritance Implementation of Multiple inheritance Common base classes 25 /
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Open WATCOM Programmer's Guide
    this document downloaded from... Use of this document the wings of subject to the terms and conditions as flight in an age stated on the website. of adventure for more downloads visit our other sites Positive Infinity and vulcanhammer.net chet-aero.com Watcom FORTRAN 77 Programmer's Guide Version 1.8 Notice of Copyright Copyright 2002-2008 the Open Watcom Contributors. Portions Copyright 1984-2002 Sybase, Inc. and its subsidiaries. All rights reserved. Any part of this publication may be reproduced, transmitted, or translated in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, manual, optical, or otherwise, without the prior written permission of anyone. For more information please visit http://www.openwatcom.org/ Portions of this manual are reprinted with permission from Tenberry Software, Inc. ii Preface The Watcom FORTRAN 77 Programmer's Guide includes the following major components: · DOS Programming Guide · The DOS/4GW DOS Extender · Windows 3.x Programming Guide · Windows NT Programming Guide · OS/2 Programming Guide · Novell NLM Programming Guide · Mixed Language Programming · Common Problems Acknowledgements This book was produced with the Watcom GML electronic publishing system, a software tool developed by WATCOM. In this system, writers use an ASCII text editor to create source files containing text annotated with tags. These tags label the structural elements of the document, such as chapters, sections, paragraphs, and lists. The Watcom GML software, which runs on a variety of operating systems, interprets the tags to format the text into a form such as you see here. Writers can produce output for a variety of printers, including laser printers, using separately specified layout directives for such things as font selection, column width and height, number of columns, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • COMPILING FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING CONSTRUCTS to a LOGIC ENGINE by Harvey Abramson and Peter Ludemann Technical Report 86-24 November 1986
    COMPILING FUNCTIONAL PROGRAMMING CONSTRUCTS TO A LOGIC ENGINE by Harvey Abramson and Peter Ludemann Technical Report 86-24 November 1986 Compiling Functional Programming Constructs to a Logic Engine Harvey Abramson t and Peter Ltidemann:I: Department of Computer Science University of British Columbia Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T 1W5 Copyright © 1986 Abstract In this paper we consider how various constructs used in functional programming can be efficiently translated to code for a Prolog engine (designed by Ltidemann) similar in spirit but not identical to the Warren machine. It turns out that this Prolog engine which contains a delay mechanism designed to permit co­ routining and sound implementation of negation is sufficient to handle all common functional programming constructs; indeed, such a machine has about the same efficiency as a machine designed specifically for a functional programming language. This machine has been fully implemented. t Present address: Department of Computer Science, Bristol University, Bristol, England . f Present address: IBM Canada Ltd., 1 Park Centre, 895 Don Mills Road, North York, Ontario, Canada M3C 1W3 The proposals for combining the two paradigms Compiling Functional Programming have been roughly classified in [BoGi86] as being Constructs to a Logic Engine either functional plus logic or logic plus functional. Harvey Abramson t and Peter Ltidemanni In the former approach, invertibility, nondeterminism Department of Computer Science and unification are added to some higher order functional language; in the latter approach, first-order University of British Columbia functions are added to a first-order logic with an Vancouver, B.C., Canada V6T lWS equality theory. We do not take any position as to Copyright© 1986 which approach is best, but since a logic machine already deals with unification, nondeterminism and invertibility, we have taken, from an implementation Abstract viewpoint, the logic plus functional approach.
    [Show full text]
  • Parameter Passing, Generics, Exceptions
    Lecture 9: Parameter Passing, Generics and Polymorphism, Exceptions COMP 524 Programming Language Concepts Stephen Olivier February 12, 2008 Based on notes by A. Block, N. Fisher, F. Hernandez-Campos, and D. Stotts The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Parameter Passing •Pass-by-value: Input parameter •Pass-by-result: Output parameter •Pass-by-value-result: Input/output parameter •Pass-by-reference: Input/output parameter, no copy •Pass-by-name: Effectively textual substitution The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2 Pass-by-value int m=8, i=5; foo(m); print m; # print 8 proc foo(int b){ b = b+5; } The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 3 Pass-by-reference int m=8; foo(m); print m; # print 13 proc foo(int b){ b = b+5; } The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 4 Pass-by-value-result int m=8; foo(m); print m; # print 13 proc foo(int b){ b = b+5; } The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 5 Pass-by-name •Arguments passed by name are re-evaluated in the caller’s referencing environment every time they are used. •They are implemented using a hidden-subroutine, known as a thunk. •This is a costly parameter passing mechanism. •Think of it as an in-line substitution (subroutine code put in-line at point of call, with parameters substituted). •Or, actual parameters substituted textually in the subroutine body for the formulas. The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 6 Pass-by-name array A[1..100] of int; array A[1..100] of int; int i=5; int i=5; foo(A[i], i); foo(A[i]); print A[i]; #print A[6]=7
    [Show full text]
  • Subroutines and Control Abstraction8 8.3.2 Call by Name
    Subroutines and Control Abstraction8 8.3.2 Call by Name Call by name implements the normal-order argument evaluation described in Section 6.6.2. A call-by-name parameter is re-evaluated in the caller’s referencing environment every time it is used. The effect is as if the called routine had been textually expanded at the point of call, with the actual parameter (which may be a complicated expression) replacing every occurrence of the formal parameter. To avoid the usual problems with macro parameters, the “expansion” is defined to include parentheses around the replaced parameter wherever syntactically valid, and to make “suitable systematic changes” to the names of any formal parame- ters or local identifiers that share the same name, so that their meanings never conflict [NBB+63, p. 12]. Call by name is the default in Algol 60; call by value is available as an alternative. In Simula call by value is the default; call by name is the alternative. Toimplement call by name,Algol 60 implementations pass a hidden subroutine that evaluates the actual parameter in the caller’s referencing environment. The hidden routine is usually called a thunk.2 In most cases thunks are trivial. If an actual parameter is a variable name, for example, the thunk simply reads the EXAMPLE 8.68 variable from memory. In some cases, however, a thunk can be elaborate. Perhaps Jensen’s device the most famous occurs in what is known as Jensen’s device, named after Jørn Jensen [Rut67]. The idea is to pass to a subroutine both a built-up expression and one or more of the variables used in the expression.
    [Show full text]
  • Design, Semantics and Implementation of the Ptolemy
    Computer Science Technical Reports Computer Science Summer 7-31-2015 Design, Semantics and Implementation of the Ptolemy Programming Language: A Language with Quantified yT ped Events Hridesh Rajan Iowa State University, [email protected] Gary T. Leavens University of Central Florida Follow this and additional works at: http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cs_techreports Part of the Programming Languages and Compilers Commons Recommended Citation Rajan, Hridesh and Leavens, Gary T., "Design, Semantics and Implementation of the Ptolemy Programming Language: A Language with Quantified Typed Events" (2015). Computer Science Technical Reports. 376. http://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cs_techreports/376 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Computer Science at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Computer Science Technical Reports by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Design, Semantics and Implementation of the Ptolemy Programming Language: A Language with Quantified yT ped Events Abstract Implicit invocation (II) and aspect-oriented (AO) languages provide software designers with related but distinct mechanisms and strategies for decomposing programs into modules and composing modules into systems. II languages have explicitly announced events that run registered observer methods. AO languages have implicitly announced events that run method-like but more powerful advice. A limitation of II languages is their inability to refer to a large set of events succinctly. They also lack the expressive power of AO advice. Limitations of AO languages include potentially fragile dependence on syntactic structure that may hurt maintainability, and limits on the available set of implicit events and the reflective contextual information available.
    [Show full text]
  • On Matching Binary to Source Code
    ON MATCHING BINARY TO SOURCE CODE Arash Shahkar A thesis in The Department of Concordia Institute for Information Systems Engineering Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Master of Applied Science in Information Systems Security at Concordia University Montréal, Québec, Canada March 2016 c Arash Shahkar, 2016 Concordia University School of Graduate Studies This is to certify that the thesis prepared By: Arash Shahkar Entitled: On Matching Binary to Source Code and submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Applied Science (Information Systems Security) complies with the regulations of this University and meets the accepted standards with respect to originality and quality. Signed by the final examining committee: Dr. Jia Yuan Yu Chair Dr. Lingyu Wang Examiner Dr. Zhenhua Zhu External Examiner Dr. Mohammad Mannan Supervisor Approved Chair of Department or Graduate Program Director 2016 Dr. Amir Asif, Dean Faculty of Engineering and Computer Science Abstract On Matching Binary to Source Code Arash Shahkar Reverse engineering of executable binary programs has diverse applications in computer security and forensics, and often involves identifying parts of code that are reused from third party software projects. Identification of code clones by comparing and fingerprinting low-level binaries has been explored in various pieces of work as an effective approach for accelerating the reverse engineering process. Binary clone detection across different environments and computing platforms bears significant challenges, and reasoning about sequences of low-level machine in- structions is a tedious and time consuming process. Because of these reasons, the ability of matching reused functions to their source code is highly advantageous, de- spite being rarely explored to date.
    [Show full text]
  • BEA TUXEDO Workstation Guide
    BEA TUXEDO Workstation Guide BEA TUXEDO Release 6.5 Document Edition 6.5 February 1999 Copyright Copyright © 1999 BEA Systems, Inc. All Rights Reserved. Restricted Rights Legend This software and documentation is subject to and made available only pursuant to the terms of the BEA Systems License Agreement and may be used or copied only in accordance with the terms of that agreement. It is against the law to copy the software except as specifically allowed in the agreement. This document may not, in whole or in part, be copied photocopied, reproduced, translated, or reduced to any electronic medium or machine readable form without prior consent, in writing, from BEA Systems, Inc. Use, duplication or disclosure by the U.S. Government is subject to restrictions set forth in the BEA Systems License Agreement and in subparagraph (c)(1) of the Commercial Computer Software-Restricted Rights Clause at FAR 52.227-19; subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 252.227-7013, subparagraph (d) of the Commercial Computer Software--Licensing clause at NASA FAR supplement 16-52.227-86; or their equivalent. Information in this document is subject to change without notice and does not represent a commitment on the part of BEA Systems. THE SOFTWARE AND DOCUMENTATION ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. FURTHER, BEA Systems DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE, OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE USE, OR THE RESULTS OF THE USE, OF THE SOFTWARE OR WRITTEN MATERIAL IN TERMS OF CORRECTNESS, ACCURACY, RELIABILITY, OR OTHERWISE.
    [Show full text]
  • Sloth: Being Lazy Is a Virtue (When Issuing Database Queries)
    Sloth: Being Lazy is a Virtue (When Issuing Database Queries) The MIT Faculty has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters. Citation Cheung, Alvin, Samuel Madden, and Armando Solar-Lezama. “Sloth.” Proceedings of the 2014 ACM SIGMOD International Conference on Management of Data - SIGMOD ’14 (2014), June 22– 27, 2014, Snowbird, UT, USA. ACM, New York, NY, USA p.931-942. As Published http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2588555.2593672 Publisher Association for Computing Machinery Version Author's final manuscript Citable link http://hdl.handle.net/1721.1/90361 Terms of Use Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike Detailed Terms http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Sloth: Being Lazy is a Virtue (When Issuing Database Queries) Alvin Cheung Samuel Madden Armando Solar-Lezama MIT CSAIL {akcheung,madden,asolar}@csail.mit.edu ABSTRACT Google reported in 2006 that an extra 0.5 second of latency reduced Many web applications store persistent data in databases. During the overall traffic by 20% [6]. These numbers are likely worse execution, such applications spend a significant amount of time on modern computers where pages load faster and faster, making communicating with the database for retrieval and storing of per- it increasingly important to reduce the amount of time spent on sistent data over the network. These network round trips represent database queries. Second, ORM frameworks can greatly increase a significant fraction of the overall execution time for many appli- load times by performing additional queries to retrieve objects that cations and as a result increase their latency.
    [Show full text]
  • O O S E E Object Orientation
    Classification [7] O OSE E + classes + inheritance Object Orientation object−based class−based object−oriented Operating-System Engineering Operating-System Engineering — Object Orientation 2 Object-Oriented Design [2] Object-Based • implies the capability of data abstraction { methods provide access to attributes method { attributes represent instance variables Object-oriented design is a method of design encompassing the process of object-oriented decomposition and a notation for depicting both logical and attribute • methods define the object’s external interface object physical as well as static and dynamic models of the systems under design. { similar to an abstract data type (ADT) • objects are unique instances, having only in common the need for memory Operating-System Engineering — Object Orientation 1 Operating-System Engineering — Object Orientation 3 Class-Based Object Orientation = Objects + Classes + Inheritance • objects are instances of classes • an object-oriented programming language must provide linguistic support { a class defines a set of common properties methods { properties are attributes of a class { it must enable the programmers to describe common properties of objects { classes may be compared to types ∗ such a language is referred to as an object-based programming language { it is called object-oriented only if class hierarchies can be built by inheritance ∗ • a meta-description specifies the interface instances so that the objects can be instances of classes that have been inherited { it allows the modeling of an object as a polymorphous entity { describing a uniform management class { indicating further data abstractions • object orientation is unattainable using imperative programming languages1 • depending on the programming language employed, a class may be an ADT 1Notwithstanding, from time to time there are comments stating the development of object-oriented systems using e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • How Windows Works 97
    11_0789734249_CH07.qxd 10/17/05 2:11 PM Page 96 96 PART 3 HOW SOFTWARE WORKS CHAPTER How Windows 7 Works 11_0789734249_CH07.qxd 10/17/05 2:11 PM Page 97 CHAPTER 7 HOW WINDOWS WORKS 97 THE Windows operating system is more than just a pretty face. Sure, it’s cute, with all the tiny pictures called icons, sound effects, your personal color scheme, and the capability to drag things around like pull-toys. But behind that face is a stern taskmaster. Windows XP, Microsoft’s advanced version of Windows, is not your father’s operating system. Earlier versions of the consumer level of Windows were built on top of DOS, an elementary operating system for small computers and modest programs that came with the first PCs. DOS was inept at graphics, color, and sound, features that are commonplace in Windows. More importantly, DOS was intended to run only one program at a time. There was no competition by different programs for the attention of the processor, memory, and drive storage. Computers back then might not have had much memory, but any program loaded into that memory had the run of the place. Now, these programs were expected to play nice and share such toys as RAM and the CPU. They didn’t, of course. And when programs trampled on another program’s RAM, Windows didn’t know what to do and collapsed into the dreaded Blue Screen of Death. With XP, Windows finally got smart—and sneaky. As you’ll discover in this chapter, Windows became enormously more stable when it used pretend computers so that each program thought it was the only program running on the PC.
    [Show full text]
  • CS 251: Programming Languages Fall 2015 ML Summary, Part 5
    CS 251: Programming Languages Fall 2015 ML Summary, Part 5 These notes contain material adapted from notes for CSE 341 at the University of Washington by Dan Grossman. They have been converted to use SML instead of Racket and extended with some additional material by Ben Wood. Contents Introduction to Delayed Evaluation and Thunks .......................... 1 Lazy Evaluation with Delay and Force ................................. 2 Streams .................................................... 4 Memoization ................................................. 6 Integrating Lazy Evaluation into the Language ........................... 11 Introduction to Delayed Evaluation and Thunks A key semantic issue for a language construct is when are its subexpressions evaluated. For example, in ML (and similarly in Racket and most but not all programming languages), given e1 e2 ... en we evaluate the function arguments e2, ..., en once before we execute the function body and given a function fn ... => ... we do not evaluate the body until the function is called. This rule (\evaluate arguments in advance") goes by many names, including eager evaluation and call-by-value. (There is a family of names for parameter-passing styles referred to with call-by-.... Many are not particularly illuminating or downright confusing names, but we note them here for reference.) We can contrast eager evaluation with how if e1 then e2 else e3 works: we do not evaluate both e2 and e3. This is why: fun iffy x y z = if x then y else z is a function that cannot be used wherever
    [Show full text]
  • Csci 555: Functional Programming Functional Programming in Scala Strictness and Laziness
    CSci 555: Functional Programming Functional Programming in Scala Strictness and Laziness H. Conrad Cunningham 2 May 2019 Contents Strictness and Laziness 2 Introduction . .2 Motivation . .2 What are strictness and nonstrictness? . .3 Exploring nonstrictness . .3 Lazy Lists . .5 Smart constructors and memoized streams . .6 Helper functions . .7 Separating Program Description from Evaluation . .9 Laziness promotes reuse . .9 Incremental computations . 11 For comprehensions on streams . 12 Infinite Streams snd Corecursion . 12 Prime numbers: Sieve of Erastosthenes . 13 Function unfold ........................... 14 Summary . 15 Source Code for Chapter . 15 Exercises . 15 Acknowledgements . 16 References . 16 Terms and Concepts . 17 Copyright (C) 2016, 2018, 2019, H. Conrad Cunningham Professor of Computer and Information Science University of Mississippi 211 Weir Hall P.O. Box 1848 University, MS 38677 1 (662) 915-5358 Note: This set of notes accompanies my lectures on Chapter 5 of the book Functional Programming in Scala [Chiusano 2015] (i.e. the Red Book). Prerequisites: In this set of notes, I assume the reader is familiar with the programming concepts and Scala features covered in my Notes on Scala for Java Programmers [Cunningham 2019a], Recursion Styles, Correctness, and Efficiency (Scala Version) [Cunningham 2019b], Type System Concepts [Cunningham 2019c], Functional Data Structures [Cunningham 2019d], and Handling Errors without Exceptions [Cunningham 2019e]. Browser Advisory: The HTML version of this textbook requires a browser that supports the display of MathML. A good choice as of April 2019 is a recent version of Firefox from Mozilla. 2 Strictness and Laziness Introduction The big idea we discuss in this chapter is how we can exploit nonstrict functions to increase efficiency, increase code reuse, and improve modularity in functional programs.
    [Show full text]