PL Design Notes.md

So Rust has global references ownership rules, which only allow one (borrowed) mutable reference to the same object to be active in the current block scope. The objective is to prevent race conditions on the object. But from the discussion we had on the forum, a DAG tree of disjointness is not a general model of imperative programming and afaics in the general case requires dependent typing (which is known to exclude Turing-completeness). Thus I abandoned Rust's global borrowing rules, because it seems like a pita of false promises that is rarely (20% of the time?) applicable.

But I proposed a more localized use of borrow tracking which I also referred to in later posts{1} that afaics can help free temporary objects without relying on GC in many cases.

I don't intend to use my proposal to prevent race conditions due two or more borrowed mutable references existing in the same block scope (which as I stated above Rust prevents and which I think is a PL design error). In the case where all these borrows are "outer-only" immutable, my proposal can guarantee the owner has an exclusive mutable copy of the reference w.r.t. modifying the polymorphic type of the reference. This I think can be useful for the case where we want to assume the owner has the only copy of a reference to the collection in its block scope, so that my first-class unions idea can be used to add new element types to a collection without needing to require that the collection is an immutable data structure (since immutable data structures are generally at least O(log(n)) slower). In other words, we can force immutable access on a mutable data type every where except for the owner's block scope, so this gives us the best of both mutable data structures and immutability for prevent race conditions.

I was thinking about how asynchronous programming (e.g. yield) impacts my proposal. For example, in JavaScript yield of a Promise will allow the current thread to run another stack which was waiting on a Promise event which has been fulfilled and is at the top of the event queue. In this way, JavaScript is able to achieve concurrency without the slower overhead and bugs of synchronization primitives such as mutex guards. But this form of asynchronous concurrency can't create race conditions in my proposal, because the stack is not made reentrant, i.e. each asynchronous DAG of execution is on a separate stack. And my proposal will not pass borrowed references between threads of execution (in either form, neither OS threads nor asynchronous DAG of execution).

So I conclude my proposal is robust.

{1} [quote=https://users.rust-lang.org/t/inversion-of-control-resource-management/5737/41] 3: GC every where except ability to use borrow checking to track lifetimes of temporary objects to free them without burdening the GC in many cases. And copying some of v8's techniques for improving the robustness of handling temporary objects for those cases that fall through to the GC. [/quote]

[quote=https://users.rust-lang.org/t/inversion-of-control-resource-management/5737/51] Remember upthread I mentioned the idea of possibly employing borrow checking in a very limited way (that would be silent no annotations in most cases) which didn't extend its tentacles into a total ordering, yet afaics might enable to declare some references to be unique (non-aliased) mutable, so that these could be compile-time deallocated (not given to the GC) and afaics these guarantees would also eliminate the need for the immutable restriction on adding elements to collections under my proposed complete solution to the expression problem.

Thus I think the GC would be entirely out of the picture when interface to FFI in that case, but I need to dig into the details to be sure. [/quote]

[quote=https://users.rust-lang.org/t/inversion-of-control-resource-management/5737/37] I do roughly envision a possibly very significant advantage of compile-time checking the borrowing of memory lifetimes local to the function body, if that can help offload from GC the destruction of temporary objects and if it won't require lifetime parameters. And that is because thrashing the GC with temporary objects appears to be one of the most significant weaknesses of GC. That is only enforcing a partial order, and not attempting to compile-time check a global consistency which can't exist. In short, I don't want a type system that silently lies to me very often. [/quote]

[quote=https://users.rust-lang.org/t/inversion-of-control-resource-management/5737/28] That is why I am pondering about localizing the borrow checker to just function bodies, so that we can get some of its benefits without having lifetime checking grow tentacles into everything where it can't even model general semantics. [/quote]

@keean wrote:

There was a comment on LTU today that has made me see the union type thing in a different light.

You can consider multi-method dispatch to be a form of first class pattern matching, and I think it will always result in a union type (not an intersection type) if you force all instances of the same method to have the same return type so:

fn size(x : String) -> i32 
fn size(x : i32) -> i32

Is modelled as something like

fn size args -> i32 {
    match args {
        (x : String) => ... ,
        (y : i32) => ...
    }
}

And the type would be:

size : String \/ i32 -> i32

Of course this is really a type class without the class:

trait Sizable {
    fn size(self) -> i32;
}

impl Sizable for String {
    fn size(self) -> i32 {...}
}

impl Sizable for i32 {
    fn size(self) -> i32 {...}
}

I think there is a reasonable argument that ad-hoc multi-methods are like untyped languages, and that type-classes bring some discipline and order to overloading.

In other words, as you write larger programs, ad-hoc multi-methods overloading will limit overall program size and complexity. Naming your type-classes is basically the same argument as naming your types. It seems to me someone who favours named types will eventually conclude that named type-classes are the right thing. If you prefer ad-hoc multi-method overloading you will probably prefer an untyped language?

@keean wrote:

There was a comment on LTU today that has made me see the union type thing in a different light.

Some smart folks over at LtU, but I find often the comments there are not well developed and often incorrect. Or I mean trying to compete with dozens of minds simultaneously seems to not really refine the discussions well. It is just all over the place. Also because the PL design space is so vast.

I am thinking I probably prefer a design environment of talking with a fewer number of experts with mutual dedication to analyzing all the details with pedantic detail and commitment to not allow incorrect or poorly developed thoughts to linger.

@keean wrote:

You can consider multi-method dispatch to be a form of first class pattern matching, and I think it will always result in a union type (not an intersection type) if you force all instances of the same method to have the same return type

For performance, I would prefer those overloads to be resolved at compile-time. The compiler should mangle the function names to create two different functions.

I've read in the past that Scala folks think function overloading was a bad idea, but I need to locate and study the reasons they think that.

@keean wrote:

I think there is a reasonable argument that ad-hoc multi-methods are like untyped languages, and that type-classes bring some discipline and order to overloading.

Disagree. I view union types as a way to delay at compile-time the point in the program where the type class is applied. Without first-class anonymous (or nominal/named) union types, then we are forced to prematurely erase the data types to a trait object in order to build a collection (or any data structure) with the type parameter being a union of data types. Nominal unions force much additional boilerplate as compared to first-class, anonymous unions.

So unions aren't throwing away typing, nor are they replacing typeclasses. Rather they delay the point at which we apply the typeclass to the function bounds. This enables us to add new data types and new functions orthogonally, being a (afaik the first) complete solution to Wadler's Expression Problem.

@keean wrote:

If you prefer ad-hoc multi-method overloading you will probably prefer an untyped language?

Disagree with the premise.

Untyped (i.e. unityped) languages allow the freedom to do the typing in your head and not enforced by the compiler, thus expression of semantics is entirely unihibited, but this comes at a cost of human error and lack of communication of the semantics in open source to other readers.

Delaying the coercion of data types to typeclasses (or shudder to super types in an OOP subtyping anti-pattern), by retaining the union of explicit data types is compile-time typing. It is not about throwing away types, but rather about opening the extension in both dimensions of Wadler's stated Expression Problem (which as he wrote at the turn of the century was an old problem in computer science).

P.S. I am working on another software project for a few months, so I will set this PL work aside interim, but will remain interested in discussions. I may not reply as quickly though. I am still very serious about this PL project. Want to come back to it asap. Hope we maintain contact. Any way, we are connected on LinkedIn, so I could message you there if ever you were not available here.

http://btcbase.org/log/2016-06-23#1487987

mircea_popescu: nothing actionable or useful that i can discern. just the simple observation that a) code the size of the body of work of respected past intellectuals is not maintainable by teams or individuals, while the writings were maintainable by the author solo ; b) the correct solution to scale is not increase in rigidity, but flexibility. which is how skyscrapers work or japan defends from earthquakes.
asciilifeform: or how about a lift that maybe-goes down or maybe-up
mircea_popescu: so it seems to me that perhaps we could say "obviously" the more strictly defined a language gets, the more catastrophic the necessary collapse of its large scale systems.