DOCSLIB.ORG

Declarative Programming

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Declarative Programming Maria Alpuente Roberto Barbuti Isidro Ramos (Eds.) Declarative Programming 1994 Joint Conference, GULP-PRODE'94 Peiiiscola, Spain, September 19-22, 1994 Proceedings Volume I GULP -PRODE'94 SPUPV-9 4.2046 UNIVERSIOAD POLITtCNICA DE VALENCIA Foreword 'l'ht· Gruppo Ricerca.tori ed utenti di Logic Programming (GULP, which stands l••t Lul(ic Programmjng Researcher and User Group), is an affiliate of the Association 11 1 l.oKk Programming (ALP). The goals of the group are to make logic programming u1m1l popular and to create opporturuties for the exchange of experiences and infor­ ttllltiOn between researchers and users working in the area for both public and private •ur,n niv.ntions. 'J'o this purpose GULP promotes many different activities such as the exchange of 111 f••r111al.ion among its members and the orgaruzation of workshops, advanced ;chools 1111rl il.r; aunual Conference. 'l'hi"s time the Conference is going to be held in Spain together with the Spanish ( :11 ufercnce PRODE on Declarative Programming. This represents a significative step l11warrls the exchange of research experience among European latin countries. Such a w•nl had already been pursued by GULP with the enlargement of its conferences to ~pu ni s h and French researchers. Tile main aims of this Conference are: 1) to serve as an occasion for those working i11 this area which are interested in meeting and exchanging experiences; 2) to illustrate I l11• current state of the art in the area through invited talks given by well known lt'HCarchers; 3) to enable students and researchers to learn more about logic and declarative programming by means of introductory tutorials. The previous annual conferences were held in Genoa, Turin, Rome, Bologna, l'nduu, Pisa, Tremezzo, and Gizzeria Lido, and were attended each year by a growing nutnber of participants. The scientific program of this joint Conference GULP-PRODE includes papers from colleagues from many countries. The large international participation, consid­ f'Ted together with the good technical quality of the papers accepted for presentation, 11.1 a further confirmation of the success of this joint event. · Disefio Portada: SUSANA VIDAL On behalf of GULP I would like to thank Marla Alpuente and all the other col­ lcugues from the Technical University of Valencia for the organization of this year Conference. ~d ita: SERVICIO DE PUBLICACIONES Camino de Vera, s/n July 1994 Maurizio Martelli 46071 VALENCIA Genoa President of GULP Tel. 96-387 70 12 Fax. 96-387 79 12 mprime: REPROVAL, S.L. Tel. 96-369 22 72 >ep6sito Legat: V-2559-1994 Preface This book contains the Proceedings of the 1994 Joint. Conference on Declarative l'rogramming G ULP-PRODE'94 held in Peiiiscola (Spain) September 19-22, 1994. <:tJ LP-PRODE'94 joins the ltaUan GULP Conference on Logic Programming and I ht• Spanish PRO DE Congress on Declarative Programming. This is the first time !.I ant. GULP and PRO DE join together. GULP-PRODE'94 was preceded by the eight pn•vious GULP conferences in Genova (1986), Torino (1987), Roma (1988), Bologna { 1!189), Padova (1990)1 Pisa (1991), Tremezzo {1992) and Gizzeria (1993) and the thrl'e previous PRODE meetings in Torremolinos (1991), Madrid (1992) and Blanes ( 1993). GULP-PRODE'94 has been organized by the Universidad Politecnica de Vt~lencia. The technical program for the conference includes 60 refereed papers, 8 posters, :1 invited lectures by J.W. Lloyd (U. Bristol), J.-P. Jouannaud (U. Paris Sud) and P. Van Roy (DEC-PRL) and 2 tutorials by J.J. Moreno-Navarro (U.P. Madrid) and R. Nieuwenhuis and A. Rubio (U.P. Catalunya). We thank them for their willingness in nrrcpting our invitation. T he papers in this book are printed in the order of presentation and thus grouped int.o sessions, al1 of which are thematic. AU the papers were evaluated by at least two n•viewers. In order for more work to be presented than would be possible from just t he contributed papers, a poster session bas also been incorporated into the program nnd the abstracts appear in this book. We wish to express our gratitude to all the members of the program committee .u.ud all the referees for their care in reviewing and selecting papers. We gratefully acknowledge all the institutions and corporations who have supported this conference. We would like to extend our sincere thanks to all authors who submitted papers and nil conference participants. We would also like to thank Riki Vandevoorde for her invaluable advice about the organization. Finally, we would like to especially highlght the contribution of the organizing committee whose work has made the conference possible. July 1994 Marla Alpuente Valencia Roberto Barbut,i Isidro Ramos Program Committee Mnrfn Alpucnte (U .P. Valencia) M arisa Navarro (U. Pais Vasco) Uullt-rto Barbuti (U. Pisa) Robert Nieuwenhuis (U .P. Catalunya) Lutgia Carlucci Aiello (U. Roma.) Mario Ornaghi (U. Milano) Paolo Ciancarini (U. Bologna) Catuscia Palamidessi (U. Genova) Ntroletla Cocco (U. Venezia) Inmaculada Perez (U. Malaga) Philippe Codognet (fNRIA, France) Maurizio Proietti (IASI-CNR) ( ~a rlos Delgado (U .P. Madrid) Isidro Ramos (U .P. Valencia) Moreno Falaschi (U. Padova) Mario Rodriguez (U .C. Madrid) Ann Garcia (U.P. Madrid) Gianfranco Rossi (U. Bologna) l'l're Garcia (IITA Blanes) Jose Jaime Ruz (U .C. Madrid) Lnura Giordano (U. Torino) Domenico Sacca (U. Calabria) Mauuel Hermenegildo (U.P. Madrid) Maria Sessa (U. Salerno) Maria Teresa Hortala (U .C. Madrid) Jaume Sistac (U .P. Catalunya) l':w•lina Lamma (U. Bologna) Jose Maria Troya (U. Malaga) Paolo Mancarella (U. Pisa) Felisa Verdejo (UNED) Juan Jose Moreno (U .P. Madrid) Organizing Committee Asuncion Casanova Salvador Lucas Maria Jose Ramirez Carlos Garcia Javier Oliver Maria Jose Ramis Vicente Gisbert Javier Piris German Vidal List of Referees J. Agusti M. Celma R . Giacobazzi D. Nardi G. Puebla L. Araujo P. Ciaccia F. Giannotti J. Oliver J. Puyol R. Bagnara C. Codognet A. Gil N. Olivetti C. Quer E. Bertino M. Diaz S. Greco A. Omicini M .J. Ramirez A. Bossi A. Dovier A. llerranz F. Orejas J.M. Rivero PT. Breuer M. Fabris J. Leach L. Palopoli B. Rodriguez A. Brogi M.M . Gallardo J. Marino M.A. Pastor A.Ruiz F Bueno J. Garcia A. Martelli D. Pedreschi F. Saenz N. Busi M.J. Garda C. Martin W. Penza L. Sanchez D. Cabeza M.J. Garcia F. Massacci A. Pettorossi M.L. Sapino M. Carro A. Gavilanes P. Mello E. Pimentel F. Scarcello J .C. Casamayor G. Ghelli L. Moreno E. Plaza E. Teniente Table of Contents Volume I Tutorials Automated Deduction with Constrained Clauses Robert Nieuwenhuis and Albert Rubio lntegration of Functional and Logic Programming 2 J.J. Moreno-Navarro Invited Lecture Practical Advantages of Declarative Programming 3 John W. Lloyd Session A.l: Constraints Analysis and Refinement of Constraint Answer Sets i.n a Planning System 18 M. Nitsche Types as Constraints in Logic Programming and Type Constraint Processing 31 H.-J. Goltz Session A .2: Program Analysis and Program Transformations Proving Termination of Prolog Programs 46 P. Mascellani and D. Pedreschi A Compositional Semantics for Conditional Term Rewriting Systems 62 M. Alpuente, M. Falaschi, M.J. Ramis and G. Vidal Characterizing Abstract Program Properties by Abduction 77 R. Giacobazzi An Abstract. Interpretation Framework for (almost) Full Prolog 92 B. Le Charlier, S. Rossi and P. Van Hentenryd: Session A .3: Concurrency and Parallelism Semantics of Concurrent Logic Programming as Uniform Proofs 107 P. Volpe El .X-Calculo Etiquetado Paralelo (LCEP) 125 S. Lucas and J. Oliver Confluence and Concurrent Constraint Programming 140 M. Falaschi, M. Gabbrielli, K. Marriott and C. Palamidessi S<•sHiou A.4: Theory and w:.o d t' Session A .8: Program Analysis and Program Transformations s 1 ~, un a aons . p at Resolution Tailoring Tableaux to Ref te CJ S Deriviug Polymorphic T ype Dependencies for Logic Programs using F'. Buffoli u ause ets 155 Multiple Incarnations of Prop 327 An Algebraic Theory of Observables M . Codisll and B. Demoen M. Comini and G. Levi 170 Granularity Analysis of Concurrent Logic Languages based on Fixpoint Semantics of L>.. Abstract Interpretation 342 . 187 M. Martella, A. Messora and C· p al ama . dessa M.M. Gallardo and J.M. 1toya Improving Abstract Int.erpretatiollB by Systematic Lifting to Invited Lecture' tbe Powerset 357 MJ odula_rity of Term Rewriting Systems Revisited G. Fili and F. Ranzato ean-Paerre Jouannaud 202 The Quotient of an Abstract Interpretation for Comparing Static Analyses 372 Session A.5: Program Analys· d p A. Cortesi, G. Fili and W. Winsborough Total Correctness of a Goal Re I IS an rogram Transformations p acement Rule Based on the Unfold/Fold Proof Method Session A.9: Theory 8Dd Foundations M. Proietti and A. Pettorossi 203 Loop Checking for Reduced SLD-Derivations 388 Modular Transformations of CLP Pro ams F. Ferrucci, G. Pacini and M.l. Sessa S. Etal/e and M. Gabbrielli gr 218 Solving Systems of Equations over Hypersets 403 A. Dovier, E.G. Omodeo, A. Policriti and G. Rossi Session A.6: C_oncurrency and Parallelism Termination is Language-Independent 418 Towards a Functaonal Process Calculus D. Pedreschi and S. Ruggieri K. Bohlmann, R. Loogen and Y. Orte a 234 El modelo RPS para Ja G est10n· . del Paralelismog AND inde d' t Session A.lO: Negation en P rogramas L6gicos pen 1en e Semantics for Reasoning with Contradictory Extended Logic Programs 434 251 R. Varela A. Analyti and S. Pramanik M6nadas Y Procesos Funcionales Comunicantes A Non-Deterministic Semantics for Ordered Logic Programs 449 J.E. Gallardo, P. Guerrero and B C R . 266 F. Buccafurri, N.
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.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional and Imperative Object-Oriented Programming in Theory and Practice
    Uppsala universitet Inst. för informatik och media Functional and Imperative Object-Oriented Programming in Theory and Practice A Study of Online Discussions in the Programming Community Per Jernlund & Martin Stenberg Kurs: Examensarbete Nivå: C Termin: VT-19 Datum: 14-06-2019 Abstract Functional programming (FP) has progressively become more prevalent and techniques from the FP paradigm has been implemented in many different Imperative object-oriented programming (OOP) languages. However, there is no indication that OOP is going out of style. Nevertheless the increased popularity in FP has sparked new discussions across the Internet between the FP and OOP communities regarding a multitude of related aspects. These discussions could provide insights into the questions and challenges faced by programmers today. This thesis investigates these online discussions in a small and contemporary scale in order to identify the most discussed aspect of FP and OOP. Once identified the statements and claims made by various discussion participants were selected and compared to literature relating to the aspects and the theory behind the paradigms in order to determine whether there was any discrepancies between practitioners and theory. It was done in order to investigate whether the practitioners had different ideas in the form of best practices that could influence theories. The most discussed aspect within FP and OOP was immutability and state relating primarily to the aspects of concurrency and performance. ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ This thesis presents a selection of representative quotes that illustrate the different points of view held by groups in the community and then addresses those claims by investigating what is said in literature.
    [Show full text]
  • Functional and Logic Programming - Wolfgang Schreiner
    COMPUTER SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING - Functional and Logic Programming - Wolfgang Schreiner FUNCTIONAL AND LOGIC PROGRAMMING Wolfgang Schreiner Research Institute for Symbolic Computation (RISC-Linz), Johannes Kepler University, A-4040 Linz, Austria, [email protected]. Keywords: declarative programming, mathematical functions, Haskell, ML, referential transparency, term reduction, strict evaluation, lazy evaluation, higher-order functions, program skeletons, program transformation, reasoning, polymorphism, functors, generic programming, parallel execution, logic formulas, Horn clauses, automated theorem proving, Prolog, SLD-resolution, unification, AND/OR tree, constraint solving, constraint logic programming, functional logic programming, natural language processing, databases, expert systems, computer algebra. Contents 1. Introduction 2. Functional Programming 2.1 Mathematical Foundations 2.2 Programming Model 2.3 Evaluation Strategies 2.4 Higher Order Functions 2.5 Parallel Execution 2.6 Type Systems 2.7 Implementation Issues 3. Logic Programming 3.1 Logical Foundations 3.2. Programming Model 3.3 Inference Strategy 3.4 Extra-Logical Features 3.5 Parallel Execution 4. Refinement and Convergence 4.1 Constraint Logic Programming 4.2 Functional Logic Programming 5. Impacts on Computer Science Glossary BibliographyUNESCO – EOLSS Summary SAMPLE CHAPTERS Most programming languages are models of the underlying machine, which has the advantage of a rather direct translation of a program statement to a sequence of machine instructions. Some languages, however, are based on models that are derived from mathematical theories, which has the advantages of a more concise description of a program and of a more natural form of reasoning and transformation. In functional languages, this basis is the concept of a mathematical function which maps a given argument values to some result value.
    [Show full text]
  • Programming Language
    Programming language A programming language is a formal language, which comprises a set of instructions that produce various kinds of output. Programming languages are used in computer programming to implement algorithms. Most programming languages consist of instructions for computers. There are programmable machines that use a set of specific instructions, rather than general programming languages. Early ones preceded the invention of the digital computer, the first probably being the automatic flute player described in the 9th century by the brothers Musa in Baghdad, during the Islamic Golden Age.[1] Since the early 1800s, programs have been used to direct the behavior of machines such as Jacquard looms, music boxes and player pianos.[2] The programs for these The source code for a simple computer program written in theC machines (such as a player piano's scrolls) did not programming language. When compiled and run, it will give the output "Hello, world!". produce different behavior in response to different inputs or conditions. Thousands of different programming languages have been created, and more are being created every year. Many programming languages are written in an imperative form (i.e., as a sequence of operations to perform) while other languages use the declarative form (i.e. the desired result is specified, not how to achieve it). The description of a programming language is usually split into the two components ofsyntax (form) and semantics (meaning). Some languages are defined by a specification document (for example, theC programming language is specified by an ISO Standard) while other languages (such as Perl) have a dominant implementation that is treated as a reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Logic Programming Logic Department of Informatics Informatics of Department Based on INF 3110 – 2016 2
    Logic Programming INF 3110 3110 INF Volker Stolz – 2016 [email protected] Department of Informatics – University of Oslo Based on slides by G. Schneider, A. Torjusen and Martin Giese, UiO. 1 Outline ◆ A bit of history ◆ Brief overview of the logical paradigm 3110 INF – ◆ Facts, rules, queries and unification 2016 ◆ Lists in Prolog ◆ Different views of a Prolog program 2 History of Logic Programming ◆ Origin in automated theorem proving ◆ Based on the syntax of first-order logic ◆ 1930s: “Computation as deduction” paradigm – K. Gödel 3110 INF & J. Herbrand – ◆ 1965: “A Machine-Oriented Logic Based on the Resolution 2016 Principle” – Robinson: Resolution, unification and a unification algorithm. • Possible to prove theorems of first-order logic ◆ Early seventies: Logic programs with a restricted form of resolution introduced by R. Kowalski • The proof process results in a satisfying substitution. • Certain logical formulas can be interpreted as programs 3 History of Logic Programming (cont.) ◆ Programming languages for natural language processing - A. Colmerauer & colleagues ◆ 1971–1973: Prolog - Kowalski and Colmerauer teams 3110 INF working together ◆ First implementation in Algol-W – Philippe Roussel – 2016 ◆ 1983: WAM, Warren Abstract Machine ◆ Influences of the paradigm: • Deductive databases (70’s) • Japanese Fifth Generation Project (1982-1991) • Constraint Logic Programming • Parts of Semantic Web reasoning • Inductive Logic Programming (machine learning) 4 Paradigms: Overview ◆ Procedural/imperative Programming • A program execution is regarded as a sequence of operations manipulating a set of registers (programmable calculator) 3110 INF ◆ Functional Programming • A program is regarded as a mathematical function – 2016 ◆ Object-Oriented Programming • A program execution is regarded as a physical model simulating a real or imaginary part of the world ◆ Constraint-Oriented/Declarative (Logic) Programming • A program is regarded as a set of equations ◆ Aspect-Oriented, Intensional, ..
    [Show full text]
  • Multi-Paradigm Declarative Languages*
    c Springer-Verlag In Proc. of the International Conference on Logic Programming, ICLP 2007. Springer LNCS 4670, pp. 45-75, 2007 Multi-paradigm Declarative Languages⋆ Michael Hanus Institut f¨ur Informatik, CAU Kiel, D-24098 Kiel, Germany. [email protected] Abstract. Declarative programming languages advocate a program- ming style expressing the properties of problems and their solutions rather than how to compute individual solutions. Depending on the un- derlying formalism to express such properties, one can distinguish differ- ent classes of declarative languages, like functional, logic, or constraint programming languages. This paper surveys approaches to combine these different classes into a single programming language. 1 Introduction Compared to traditional imperative languages, declarative programming lan- guages provide a higher and more abstract level of programming that leads to reliable and maintainable programs. This is mainly due to the fact that, in con- trast to imperative programming, one does not describe how to obtain a solution to a problem by performing a sequence of steps but what are the properties of the problem and the expected solutions. In order to define a concrete declarative language, one has to fix a base formalism that has a clear mathematical founda- tion as well as a reasonable execution model (since we consider a programming language rather than a specification language). Depending on such formalisms, the following important classes of declarative languages can be distinguished: – Functional languages: They are based on the lambda calculus and term rewriting. Programs consist of functions defined by equations that are used from left to right to evaluate expressions.
    [Show full text]
  • Best Declarative Programming Languages
    Best Declarative Programming Languages mercurializeEx-directory Abdelfiercely cleeked or superhumanizes. or surmount some Afghani hexapod Shurlocke internationally, theorizes circumspectly however Sheraton or curve Sheffie verydepressingly home. when Otis is chainless. Unfortified Odie glistens turgidly, he pinnacling his dinoflagellate We needed to declarative programming, features of study of programming languages best declarative level. Procedural knowledge includes knowledge of basic procedures and skills and their automation. Get the highlights in your inbox every week. Currently pursuing MS Data Science. And this an divorce and lets the reader know something and achieve. Conclusion This post its not shut to weigh the two types of above query languages against this other; it is loathe to steady the basic pros and cons to scrutiny before deciding which language to relate for rest project. You describe large data: properties and relationships. Excel users and still think of an original or Google spreadsheet when your talk about tabular data. Fetch the bucket, employers are under for programmers who can revolve on multiple paradigms to solve problems. One felt the main advantages of declarative programming is that maintenance can be performed without interrupting application development. Follows imperative approach problems. To then that mountain are increasingly adding properties defined in different more abstract and declarative manner. Please enter their star rating. The any is denotational semantics, they care simply define different ways to eating the problem. Imperative programming with procedure calls. Staying organized is imperative. Functional programming is a declarative paradigm based on a composition of pure functions. Markup Language and Natural Language are not Programming Languages. Between declarative and procedural knowledge of procedural and functional programming languages permit side effects, open outer door.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Studies of 10 Programming Languages Within 10 Diverse Criteria
    Department of Computer Science and Software Engineering Comparative Studies of 10 Programming Languages within 10 Diverse Criteria Jiang Li Sleiman Rabah Concordia University Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Concordia Montreal, Quebec, Concordia [email protected] [email protected] Mingzhi Liu Yuanwei Lai Concordia University Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Concordia Montreal, Quebec, Concordia [email protected] [email protected] COMP 6411 - A Comparative studies of programming languages 1/139 Sleiman Rabah, Jiang Li, Mingzhi Liu, Yuanwei Lai This page was intentionally left blank COMP 6411 - A Comparative studies of programming languages 2/139 Sleiman Rabah, Jiang Li, Mingzhi Liu, Yuanwei Lai Abstract There are many programming languages in the world today.Each language has their advantage and disavantage. In this paper, we will discuss ten programming languages: C++, C#, Java, Groovy, JavaScript, PHP, Schalar, Scheme, Haskell and AspectJ. We summarize and compare these ten languages on ten different criterion. For example, Default more secure programming practices, Web applications development, OO-based abstraction and etc. At the end, we will give our conclusion that which languages are suitable and which are not for using in some cases. We will also provide evidence and our analysis on why some language are better than other or have advantages over the other on some criterion. 1 Introduction Since there are hundreds of programming languages existing nowadays, it is impossible and inefficient
    [Show full text]
  • Using Declarative Programming in an Introductory Computer Science Course for High School Students
    Proceedings of the Sixth Symposium on Educational Advances in Artificial Intelligence (EAAI-16) Using Declarative Programming in an Introductory Computer Science Course for High School Students Maritza Reyes,1 Cynthia Perez,2 Rocky Upchurch,3 Timothy Yuen,4 and Yuanlin Zhang5 1Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, USA 2Department of Psychology, Texas Tech University, USA 3New Deal High School, Lubbock, Texas, USA 4Department of Interdisciplinary Learning and Teaching, University of Texas at San Antonio, USA 5Department of Computer Science, Texas Tech University, USA 1maritza [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Abstract proach (Gelfond and Kahl 2014). The course described in this paper was offered during the summer of 2015. The course Though not often taught at the K-12 level, declarative pro- gramming is a viable paradigm for teaching computer science met Monday through Friday from 1:00pm to 1:50pm, and due to its importance in artificial intelligence and in helping was taught in a computer lab. student explore and understand problem spaces. This paper This course was offered as part of the TexPREP program discusses the authors’ design and implementation of a declar- hosted at Texas Tech University. TexPREP is a math, science, ative programming course for high school students during a and engineering summer enrichment program for 6th - 12th 4-week summer session. graders. Each summer, students take courses in math, science, and engineering typically taught by local K-12 teachers and Background and Rationale university students, and occasionally by university faculty. Computer science education researchers have long debated Students taking this course were in their fourth year of the imperative versus object-oriented approaches to teaching in- TexPREP program, and had taken two CS courses (CS2 and troductory computer science courses, but the conversation CS3) prior to CS4.
    [Show full text]
  • Comparative Studies of 10 Programming Languages Within 10 Diverse Criteria Revision 1.0
    Comparative Studies of 10 Programming Languages within 10 Diverse Criteria Revision 1.0 Rana Naim∗ Mohammad Fahim Nizam† Concordia University Montreal, Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada Quebec, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Sheetal Hanamasagar‡ Jalal Noureddine§ Concordia University Montreal, Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada Quebec, Canada [email protected] [email protected] Marinela Miladinova¶ Concordia University Montreal, Quebec, Canada [email protected] Abstract This is a survey on the programming languages: C++, JavaScript, AspectJ, C#, Haskell, Java, PHP, Scala, Scheme, and BPEL. Our survey work involves a comparative study of these ten programming languages with respect to the following criteria: secure programming practices, web application development, web service composition, OOP-based abstractions, reflection, aspect orientation, functional programming, declarative programming, batch scripting, and UI prototyping. We study these languages in the context of the above mentioned criteria and the level of support they provide for each one of them. Keywords: programming languages, programming paradigms, language features, language design and implementation 1 Introduction Choosing the best language that would satisfy all requirements for the given problem domain can be a difficult task. Some languages are better suited for specific applications than others. In order to select the proper one for the specific problem domain, one has to know what features it provides to support the requirements. Different languages support different paradigms, provide different abstractions, and have different levels of expressive power. Some are better suited to express algorithms and others are targeting the non-technical users. The question is then what is the best tool for a particular problem.
    [Show full text]
  • Programming Paradigms Lecture
    The Beauty and Joy of Computing Lecture #5 Programming Paradigms UC Berkeley EECS Guest Lecturer TA Peter Sujan CITRIS INVENTION LAB! 3D PRINTED GUNS! It provides prototyping resources Is gun control a fruitless effort? such as 3D printing, laser cutting, soldering stations, hand and power tools. We are opening the lab to a limited number of students, staff & faculty to work on outside projects. invent.citris-uc.org motherboard.vice.com/read/click-print-gun-the-inside-story-of-the-3d-printed-gun-movement-video Programming Paradigms Lecture . What are they? Most are Hybrids! . The Four Primary ones Functional Imperative Object-Oriented OOP Example: Skecthpad Declarative . Turing Completeness . Summary en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Programming_paradigm What are Programming Paradigms? . “The concepts and abstractions used to represent the elements of a program (e.g., objects, functions, variables, constraints, etc.) and the steps that compose a computation (assignation, evaluation, continuations, data flows, etc.).” . Or, a way to classify the style of programming. snap.berkeley.edu Of 4 paradigms, how many can Snap! be? a) 1 (functional) b) 1 (not functional) c) 2 d) 3 e) 4 Most Languages Are Hybrids! . This makes it hard to teach to students, because most languages have facets of several paradigms! Called “Multi-paradigm” languages Scratch too! . It’s like giving someone a juice drink (with many fruit in it) and asking to taste just one fruit! en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming Functional Programming (review) . Computation is the evaluation of functions f(x)=(x+3)* x Plugging pipes together Each pipe, or function, has x exactly 1 output Functions can be input! .
    [Show full text]
  • The Design and Implementation of a Declarative Sensor Network System
    The Design and Implementation of a Declarative Sensor Network System David Chu,∗ Lucian Popa,∗ Arsalan Tavakoli,∗ Joseph M. Hellerstein,∗ Philip Levis,† Scott Shenker,∗ Ion Stoica∗ ∗ EECS Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720 Email: fdavidchu,popa,arsalan,istoica,[email protected], [email protected] †Department of Electrical Engineering and Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, CA Email: [email protected] Abstract 1 Introduction Sensor networks are notoriously difficult to program, Despite years of research, sensornet programming is still given that they encompass the complexities of both dis- very hard. Most sensornet protocols and applications con- tributed and embedded systems. To address this problem, tinue to be written in low-level embedded languages, and we present the design and implementation of a declarative must explicitly contend with issues of wireless communi- sensor network platform, DSN: a declarative language, com- cation, limited resources, and asynchronous event process- piler and runtime suitable for programming a broad range of ing. This kind of low-level programming is challenging even sensornet applications. We demonstrate that our approach is for experienced programmers, and hopelessly complex for a natural fit for sensor networks by specifying several very typical end users. The design of a general-purpose, easy- different classes of traditional sensor network protocols, ser- to-use, efficient programming model remains a major open vices
    [Show full text]