DOCSLIB.ORG

Metaobject Protocols: Why We Want Them and What Else They Can Do

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metaobject Protocols: Why We Want Them and What Else They Can Do Metaobject protocols: Why we want them and what else they can do Gregor Kiczales, J.Michael Ashley, Luis Rodriguez, Amin Vahdat, and Daniel G. Bobrow Published in A. Paepcke, editor, Object-Oriented Programming: The CLOS Perspective, pages 101 ¾ 118. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1993. © Massachusetts Institute of Technology All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from the publisher. Metaob ject Proto cols WhyWeWant Them and What Else They Can Do App ears in Object OrientedProgramming: The CLOS Perspective c Copyright 1993 MIT Press Gregor Kiczales, J. Michael Ashley, Luis Ro driguez, Amin Vahdat and Daniel G. Bobrow Original ly conceivedasaneat idea that could help solve problems in the design and implementation of CLOS, the metaobject protocol framework now appears to have applicability to a wide range of problems that come up in high-level languages. This chapter sketches this wider potential, by drawing an analogy to ordinary language design, by presenting some early design principles, and by presenting an overview of three new metaobject protcols we have designed that, respectively, control the semantics of Scheme, the compilation of Scheme, and the static paral lelization of Scheme programs. Intro duction The CLOS Metaob ject Proto col MOP was motivated by the tension b etween, what at the time, seemed liketwo con icting desires. The rst was to have a relatively small but p owerful language for doing ob ject-oriented programming in Lisp. The second was to satisfy what seemed to b e a large numb er of user demands, including: compatibility with previous languages, p erformance compara- ble to or b etter than previous implementations and extensibility to allow further exp erimentation with ob ject-oriented concepts see Chapter 2 for examples of directions in which ob ject-oriented techniques might b e pushed. The goal in developing the MOP was to allow a simple language to 1 b e extensible enough that all these demands could b e met. Traditionally, languages have b een designed to b e viewed as blackbox abstractions; end pro- grammers have no control over the semantics or implementatation of these abstractions. The CLOS 1 Some might argue that the base CLOS language is not so simple. What is more interesting is to consider how much of what is in that language could b e dropp ed given the current or an improved metaob ject proto col, now that wehave a b etter handle on that technology. Among those features that would b e prime candidates for elision would b e: metho d combination, the :argument-precedence-order option, metho ds on individual s eql sp ecializers and class variables. More aggressive prop osals might drop asp ects of the initiali zatio n proto col like slot- lling initargs and default initargs. Even more aggressive prop osals might drop multiple inheritance and multi-metho ds. 1 MOP on the other hand, \op ens up" the CLOS abstraction, and its implementation to the pro- grammer. The programmer can, for example, adjust asp ects of the implementation strategy suchas instance representation, or asp ects of the language semantics suchasmultiple inheritance b ehavior. The design of the CLOS MOP is such that this op ening up do es not exp ose the programmer to arbitrary details of the implementation, nor do es it tie the implementor's hand unecessarily | only the essential structure of the implementation is exp osed. In more recentwork, wehave pushed the metaob ject proto col idea in new directions, and wenow b elieve that idea is not limited to its sp eci c incarnation in CLOS, or to ob ject-oriented languages, or to languages with a \large runtime" or even to Lisp-like languages. Instead, we b elieve that providing an op en implementation can b e advantageous in a wide range of high-level languages and that metaob ject proto col technology is a p owerful to ol for providing that p ower to the programmer. The purp ose of this chapter is to summarize what has b een learned to date ab out MOP tech- nology, and suggest directions it might b e pursued in the near future. In the rst two sections, we start with the CLOS MOP, rst summarizing the motivation for it, and then giving a brief overview of how one might think ab out its development. We then present a general framework for thinking ab out MOP design, together with some early principles for design cleanliness in a MOP. Finally, we presentanoverview of three new MOPS wehave designed for Scheme, showing that a MOP can b e used to handle a range of issues other than those in the CLOS case. Motivating Examples In this section, we presenttwo simple problems that arise in languages like CLOS without a MOP,asaway of summarizing the motivation for the CLOS MOP.We also generalize from these examples, as a way of suggesting what other kinds of problems an op en language implementation might b e used to solve. The rst example has to do with p erformance. In it, the programmer has written a program which CLOS expresses quite well, but nds p erhaps to their surprise that the underlying language implementation do esn't p erform adequately. In the next section we return to this example to showhow the CLOS MOP addresses this problem by op ening up part of the implementation strategy to the programmer. The second example, is a case where the programmer can b e well-served by b eing able to adjust some part of the language semantics to b etter suit their needs. APerformance Problem Consider the two CLOS class de nitions shown in Figure 1. The class position might b e part of a graphics application, where the instances are used to represent the p osition of the mouse as it moves. The class de nes two slots x and y. In this case, the b ehavior of the program is such that there will b e a very large numb er of instances, b oth slots will b e used in every instance and access to those slots should b e as fast as p ossible. The second de nition, person, might come from a knowledge representation system, where the instances are b eing used as frames to represent di erent individuals. The thousand slots de ned in the class corresp ond to a thousand prop erties of a p erson that mightbeknown. In this application, the b ehavior is such that although there will b e a very large numb er of instances, in any given instance only a few slots will actually b e used. Furthermore, access to these prop erties will rarely b e in the inner lo op of a computation. 2 (defclass position () (defclass person () (x y)) (name age address ...)) many instances, many instances, both slots always used only a few slots used in any one instance array-like representation hash-table like representation Figure 1: Two sample CLOS class de nitions. Ideally, each class would like a di erent underlying instance implementation strategy. In a traditional sans MOP CLOS implementation, one or the other of these classes probably person will have bad p erformance. Clearly, the ideal instance implementation strategy is di erent for the two classes. For position, an array-like strategy would b e ideal; it provides compact storage of instances, and rapid access to the x and y slots. For person, a hash-table like strategy would b e more appropriate, since it isn't worth allo cating space for a slot until it is known that it will b e used. This makes access slower, but it is a worthwhile tradeo given a large numb er of instances. The likely default implementation in most ob ject-oriented languages is the array-like strategy. This serves the author of the position class quite well, but author of the person will not b e so happy.Even though the CLOS language abstraction serves to express their program quite clearly, supp osedly hidden prop erties of the implementation will impair p erformance. This particular problem is not an isolated incident, it is an instance of a common, and much more general problem. As a programming language b ecomes higher and higher level, its imple- mentation in terms of the underlying machine involves more and more tradeo s, on the part of the implementor, ab out what cases to optimize at the exp ense of what other cases. That is, the fact that a typical ob ject-oriented language implementation will do well for position and p o orly for person is no accident | the designer of the implementation made what we hop e was a concious decision to tune their implementation this way. What a prop erly designed op en language imple- mentation do es is allow the end-programmer to go back, and \re-make" one of those tradeo s to b etter suit their needs. A more complete discussion of this kind of p erformance problem, and the ways in which op en language implementations based on MOPs can help address it is given in [1]. The Desire to Customize Behavior As an example of how a programmer can derive b ene t from b eing able to adjust the language's semantics, consider the case of a programmer who is p orting a large b o dy of Flavors [2] or Lo ops [3] co de to CLOS.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 250P: Computer Systems Architecture Lecture 10: Caches
    250P: Computer Systems Architecture Lecture 10: Caches Anton Burtsev April, 2021 The Cache Hierarchy Core L1 L2 L3 Off-chip memory 2 Accessing the Cache Byte address 101000 Offset 8-byte words 8 words: 3 index bits Direct-mapped cache: each address maps to a unique address Sets Data array 3 The Tag Array Byte address 101000 Tag 8-byte words Compare Direct-mapped cache: each address maps to a unique address Tag array Data array 4 Increasing Line Size Byte address A large cache line size smaller tag array, fewer misses because of spatial locality 10100000 32-byte cache Tag Offset line size or block size Tag array Data array 5 Associativity Byte address Set associativity fewer conflicts; wasted power because multiple data and tags are read 10100000 Tag Way-1 Way-2 Tag array Data array Compare 6 Example • 32 KB 4-way set-associative data cache array with 32 byte line sizes • How many sets? • How many index bits, offset bits, tag bits? • How large is the tag array? 7 Types of Cache Misses • Compulsory misses: happens the first time a memory word is accessed – the misses for an infinite cache • Capacity misses: happens because the program touched many other words before re-touching the same word – the misses for a fully-associative cache • Conflict misses: happens because two words map to the same location in the cache – the misses generated while moving from a fully-associative to a direct-mapped cache • Sidenote: can a fully-associative cache have more misses than a direct-mapped cache of the same size? 8 Reducing Miss Rate • Large block
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 Basics of Scanning And
    Chapter 2 Basics of Scanning and Conventional Programming in Java In this chapter, we will introduce you to an initial set of Java features, the equivalent of which you should have seen in your CS-1 class; the separation of problem, representation, algorithm and program – four concepts you have probably seen in your CS-1 class; style rules with which you are probably familiar, and scanning - a general class of problems we see in both computer science and other fields. Each chapter is associated with an animating recorded PowerPoint presentation and a YouTube video created from the presentation. It is meant to be a transcript of the associated presentation that contains little graphics and thus can be read even on a small device. You should refer to the associated material if you feel the need for a different instruction medium. Also associated with each chapter is hyperlinked code examples presented here. References to previously presented code modules are links that can be traversed to remind you of the details. The resources for this chapter are: PowerPoint Presentation YouTube Video Code Examples Algorithms and Representation Four concepts we explicitly or implicitly encounter while programming are problems, representations, algorithms and programs. Programs, of course, are instructions executed by the computer. Problems are what we try to solve when we write programs. Usually we do not go directly from problems to programs. Two intermediate steps are creating algorithms and identifying representations. Algorithms are sequences of steps to solve problems. So are programs. Thus, all programs are algorithms but the reverse is not true.
    [Show full text]
  • BALANCING the Eulisp METAOBJECT PROTOCOL
    LISP AND SYMBOLIC COMPUTATION An International Journal c Kluwer Academic Publishers Manufactured in The Netherlands Balancing the EuLisp Metaob ject Proto col y HARRY BRETTHAUER bretthauergmdde JURGEN KOPP koppgmdde German National Research Center for Computer Science GMD PO Box W Sankt Augustin FRG HARLEY DAVIS davisilogfr ILOG SA avenue Gal lieni Gentil ly France KEITH PLAYFORD kjpmathsbathacuk School of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath Bath BA AY UK Keywords Ob jectoriented Programming Language Design Abstract The challenge for the metaob ject proto col designer is to balance the con icting demands of eciency simplici ty and extensibil ity It is imp ossible to know all desired extensions in advance some of them will require greater functionality while oth ers require greater eciency In addition the proto col itself must b e suciently simple that it can b e fully do cumented and understo o d by those who need to use it This pap er presents the framework of a metaob ject proto col for EuLisp which provides expressiveness by a multileveled proto col and achieves eciency by static semantics for predened metaob jects and mo dularizin g their op erations The EuLisp mo dule system supp orts global optimizations of metaob ject applicati ons The metaob ject system itself is structured into mo dules taking into account the consequences for the compiler It provides introsp ective op erations as well as extension interfaces for various functionaliti es including new inheritance allo cation and slot access semantics While
    [Show full text]
  • Third Party Channels How to Set Them up – Pros and Cons
    Third Party Channels How to Set Them Up – Pros and Cons Steve Milo, Managing Director Vacation Rental Pros, Property Manager Cell: (904) 707.1487 [email protected] Company Summary • Business started in June, 2006 First employee hired in late 2007. • Today Manage 950 properties in North East Florida and South West Florida in resort ocean areas with mostly Saturday arrivals and/or Saturday departures and minimum stays (not urban). • Hub and Spoke Model. Central office is in Ponte Vedra Beach (Accounting, Sales & Marketing). Operations office in St Augustine Beach, Ft. Myers Beach and Orlando (model home). Total company wide - 69 employees (61 full time, 8 part time) • Acquired 3 companies in 2014. The PROS of AirBNB Free to list your properties. 3% fee per booking (they pay cc fee) Customer base is different & sticky – young, urban & foreign. Smaller properties book better than larger properties. Good generator of off-season bookings. Does not require Rate Parity. Can add fees to the rent. All bookings are direct online (no phone calls). You get to review the guest who stayed in your property. The Cons of AirBNB Labor intensive. Time consuming admin. 24 hour response. Not designed for larger property managers. Content & Prices are static (only calendar has data feed). Closed Communication (only through Airbnb). Customers want more hand holding, concierge type service. “Rate Terms” not easy. Only one minimum stay, No minimum age ability. No easy way to add fees (pets, damage waiver, booking fee). Need to add fees into nightly rates. Why Booking.com? Why not Booking.com? Owned by Priceline.
    [Show full text]
  • Abstract Data Types
    Chapter 2 Abstract Data Types The second idea at the core of computer science, along with algorithms, is data. In a modern computer, data consists fundamentally of binary bits, but meaningful data is organized into primitive data types such as integer, real, and boolean and into more complex data structures such as arrays and binary trees. These data types and data structures always come along with associated operations that can be done on the data. For example, the 32-bit int data type is defined both by the fact that a value of type int consists of 32 binary bits but also by the fact that two int values can be added, subtracted, multiplied, compared, and so on. An array is defined both by the fact that it is a sequence of data items of the same basic type, but also by the fact that it is possible to directly access each of the positions in the list based on its numerical index. So the idea of a data type includes a specification of the possible values of that type together with the operations that can be performed on those values. An algorithm is an abstract idea, and a program is an implementation of an algorithm. Similarly, it is useful to be able to work with the abstract idea behind a data type or data structure, without getting bogged down in the implementation details. The abstraction in this case is called an \abstract data type." An abstract data type specifies the values of the type, but not how those values are represented as collections of bits, and it specifies operations on those values in terms of their inputs, outputs, and effects rather than as particular algorithms or program code.
    [Show full text]
  • Towards Practical Runtime Type Instantiation
    Towards Practical Runtime Type Instantiation Karl Naden Carnegie Mellon University [email protected] Abstract 2. Dispatch Problem Statement Symmetric multiple dispatch, generic functions, and variant type In contrast with traditional dynamic dispatch, the runtime of a lan- parameters are powerful language features that have been shown guage with multiple dispatch cannot necessarily use any static in- to aid in modular and extensible library design. However, when formation about the call site provided by the typechecker. It must symmetric dispatch is applied to generic functions, type parameters check if there exists a more specific function declaration than the may have to be instantiated as a part of dispatch. Adding variant one statically chosen that has the same name and is applicable to generics increases the complexity of type instantiation, potentially the runtime types of the provided arguments. The process for deter- making it prohibitively expensive. We present a syntactic restriction mining when a function declaration is more specific than another is on generic functions and an algorithm designed and implemented for laid out in [4]. A fully instantiated function declaration is applicable the Fortress programming language that simplifies the computation if the runtime types of the arguments are subtypes of the declared required at runtime when these features are combined. parameter types. To show applicability for a generic function we need to find an instantiation that witnesses the applicability and the type safety of the function call so that it can be used by the code. Formally, given 1. Introduction 1. a function signature f X <: τX (y : τy): τr, J K Symmetric multiple dispatch brings with it several benefits for 2.
    [Show full text]
  • Common Lisp Object System Specification 3. Metaobject Protocol
    Common Lisp Object System Specification 3. Metaobject Protocol This document was written by Daniel G. Bobrow, Linda G. DeMichiel, Richard P. Gabriel, Sonya E. Keene, Gregor Kiczales, and David A. Moon. Contributors to this document include Patrick Dussud, Kenneth Kahn, Jim Kempf, Larry Masinter, Mark Stefik, Daniel L. Weinreb, and Jon L White. CONTENTS CONTENTS ................................................... ............ 3–2 Status of Document ................................................... ........... 3–5 Terminology ................................................... ................ 3–6 Introduction ................................................... ................ 3–7 Class Organization in the CLOS Kernel ............................................... 3–9 The Classes in the CLOS Kernel ................................................... 3–10 standard-class ................................................... ............ 3–11 forward-referenced-class ................................................... ..... 3–11 built-in-class ................................................... ............. 3–11 structure-class ................................................... ............ 3–12 funcallable-standard-class ................................................... .... 3–12 standard-slot-description ................................................... .... 3–12 standard-class-slot-description ................................................... 3–12 standard-method ................................................... .......... 3–12
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 2: Variables and Primitive Data Types
    Lecture 2: Variables and Primitive Data Types MIT-AITI Kenya 2005 1 In this lecture, you will learn… • What a variable is – Types of variables – Naming of variables – Variable assignment • What a primitive data type is • Other data types (ex. String) MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative 2 ©2005 What is a Variable? • In basic algebra, variables are symbols that can represent values in formulas. • For example the variable x in the formula f(x)=x2+2 can represent any number value. • Similarly, variables in computer program are symbols for arbitrary data. MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative 3 ©2005 A Variable Analogy • Think of variables as an empty box that you can put values in. • We can label the box with a name like “Box X” and re-use it many times. • Can perform tasks on the box without caring about what’s inside: – “Move Box X to Shelf A” – “Put item Z in box” – “Open Box X” – “Remove contents from Box X” MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative 4 ©2005 Variables Types in Java • Variables in Java have a type. • The type defines what kinds of values a variable is allowed to store. • Think of a variable’s type as the size or shape of the empty box. • The variable x in f(x)=x2+2 is implicitly a number. • If x is a symbol representing the word “Fish”, the formula doesn’t make sense. MIT-Africa Internet Technology Initiative 5 ©2005 Java Types • Integer Types: – int: Most numbers you’ll deal with. – long: Big integers; science, finance, computing. – short: Small integers.
    [Show full text]
  • Kind of Quantity’
    NIST Technical Note 2034 Defning ‘kind of quantity’ David Flater This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2034 NIST Technical Note 2034 Defning ‘kind of quantity’ David Flater Software and Systems Division Information Technology Laboratory This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2034 February 2019 U.S. Department of Commerce Wilbur L. Ross, Jr., Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology Walter Copan, NIST Director and Undersecretary of Commerce for Standards and Technology Certain commercial entities, equipment, or materials may be identifed in this document in order to describe an experimental procedure or concept adequately. Such identifcation is not intended to imply recommendation or endorsement by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, nor is it intended to imply that the entities, materials, or equipment are necessarily the best available for the purpose. National Institute of Standards and Technology Technical Note 2034 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Tech. Note 2034, 7 pages (February 2019) CODEN: NTNOEF This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2034 NIST Technical Note 2034 1 Defning ‘kind of quantity’ David Flater 2019-02-06 This publication is available free of charge from: https://doi.org/10.6028/NIST.TN.2034 Abstract The defnition of ‘kind of quantity’ given in the International Vocabulary of Metrology (VIM), 3rd edition, does not cover the historical meaning of the term as it is most commonly used in metrology. Most of its historical meaning has been merged into ‘quantity,’ which is polysemic across two layers of abstraction.
    [Show full text]
  • Balancing the Eulisp Metaobject Protocol
    Balancing the EuLisp Metaob ject Proto col x y x z Harry Bretthauer and Harley Davis and Jurgen Kopp and Keith Playford x German National Research Center for Computer Science GMD PO Box W Sankt Augustin FRG y ILOG SA avenue Gallieni Gentilly France z Department of Mathematical Sciences University of Bath Bath BA AY UK techniques which can b e used to solve them Op en questions Abstract and unsolved problems are presented to direct future work The challenge for the metaob ject proto col designer is to bal One of the main problems is to nd a b etter balance ance the conicting demands of eciency simplicity and b etween expressiveness and ease of use on the one hand extensibili ty It is imp ossible to know all desired extensions and eciency on the other in advance some of them will require greater functionality Since the authors of this pap er and other memb ers while others require greater eciency In addition the pro of the EuLisp committee have b een engaged in the design to col itself must b e suciently simple that it can b e fully and implementation of an ob ject system with a metaob ject do cumented and understo o d by those who need to use it proto col for EuLisp Padget and Nuyens intended This pap er presents a metaob ject proto col for EuLisp to correct some of the p erceived aws in CLOS to sim which provides expressiveness by a multileveled proto col plify it without losing any of its p ower and to provide the and achieves eciency by static semantics for predened means to more easily implement it eciently The current metaob
    [Show full text]
  • Subtyping, Declaratively an Exercise in Mixed Induction and Coinduction
    Subtyping, Declaratively An Exercise in Mixed Induction and Coinduction Nils Anders Danielsson and Thorsten Altenkirch University of Nottingham Abstract. It is natural to present subtyping for recursive types coin- ductively. However, Gapeyev, Levin and Pierce have noted that there is a problem with coinductive definitions of non-trivial transitive inference systems: they cannot be \declarative"|as opposed to \algorithmic" or syntax-directed|because coinductive inference systems with an explicit rule of transitivity are trivial. We propose a solution to this problem. By using mixed induction and coinduction we define an inference system for subtyping which combines the advantages of coinduction with the convenience of an explicit rule of transitivity. The definition uses coinduction for the structural rules, and induction for the rule of transitivity. We also discuss under what condi- tions this technique can be used when defining other inference systems. The developments presented in the paper have been mechanised using Agda, a dependently typed programming language and proof assistant. 1 Introduction Coinduction and corecursion are useful techniques for defining and reasoning about things which are potentially infinite, including streams and other (poten- tially) infinite data types (Coquand 1994; Gim´enez1996; Turner 2004), process congruences (Milner 1990), congruences for functional programs (Gordon 1999), closures (Milner and Tofte 1991), semantics for divergence of programs (Cousot and Cousot 1992; Hughes and Moran 1995; Leroy and Grall 2009; Nakata and Uustalu 2009), and subtyping relations for recursive types (Brandt and Henglein 1998; Gapeyev et al. 2002). However, the use of coinduction can lead to values which are \too infinite”. For instance, a non-trivial binary relation defined as a coinductive inference sys- tem cannot include the rule of transitivity, because a coinductive reading of transitivity would imply that every element is related to every other (to see this, build an infinite derivation consisting solely of uses of transitivity).
    [Show full text]
  • Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI)
    Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) m kg s cd SI mol K A NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Ambler Thompson and Barry N. Taylor NIST Special Publication 811 2008 Edition Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Ambler Thompson Technology Services and Barry N. Taylor Physics Laboratory National Institute of Standards and Technology Gaithersburg, MD 20899 (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, 1995 Edition, April 1995) March 2008 U.S. Department of Commerce Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary National Institute of Standards and Technology James M. Turner, Acting Director National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811, 2008 Edition (Supersedes NIST Special Publication 811, April 1995 Edition) Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 811, 2008 Ed., 85 pages (March 2008; 2nd printing November 2008) CODEN: NSPUE3 Note on 2nd printing: This 2nd printing dated November 2008 of NIST SP811 corrects a number of minor typographical errors present in the 1st printing dated March 2008. Guide for the Use of the International System of Units (SI) Preface The International System of Units, universally abbreviated SI (from the French Le Système International d’Unités), is the modern metric system of measurement. Long the dominant measurement system used in science, the SI is becoming the dominant measurement system used in international commerce. The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of August 1988 [Public Law (PL) 100-418] changed the name of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and gave to NIST the added task of helping U.S.
    [Show full text]