A Lexical Mistake

Over the past few months I’ve been putting together a collection of requirements, of sorts, for a new class of dynamic functional programming languages, a language that could provide powerful dynamic features on par with Smalltalk or Self (and JavaScript etc.), without losing some important features like laziness or strong static typing.

One of the requirements I keep stumbling across is the need for referentially transparent functions that are capable of interacting directly with mutable data structures. Yeah, the kind that, by definition, are not referentially transparent.

At first I considered using compiler attributes to mark a piece of code that interacts with side effects vs. code that doesn’t. Something like the IO/ST monads from Haskell but general enough any function can interact with mutable variables, not just ones returning a monadic value. Unfortunately any code that interacts with mutable variables may behave radically differently when not constrained by the full monadic infrastructure or some equivalent like strictness (Scheme and ML).

I believe the only useful solution is to define a new property of the code–read transparency–which allows us to recognize code that is referentially transparent on immutable data while also referentially transparent towards unchanging mutable variables.

The above definition depends on the equivalence property of values, which I define along the lines of “any two data structures are equivalent if they are functionally the same value, or they only contain mutable variables containing equivalent state.” Given a good equivalence for all primitives this allows us to easily check for all functions which could safely be called in our new semi-functional programs.

The original motivating example for this concept was to allow functions like show in Haskell to work with any arbitrary data structure, mutable or not. This would greatly simplify programs like interpreters, which could use many of the same functions as pure code, without having to use somewhat cumbersome combinators like the lifting functions and unboxing functions (readIORef, etc.).

An important thing to remember about this property is that, while many previously referentially transparent functions would now only be read transparent, when used only with pure functional data, they are in fact promoted automatically to fully referentially transparent functions. That is, they remain effectively referentially transparent if you don’t care about mutable state, or to put it another way–the functions become more flexible, not less so. Only when the implementation of a function relies on language features that prevent mutable data from being used would the more restrictive referential transparency be required (like lazily evaluated results, incorporating the read operation).

We don’t actually have to stop there either. Just because a piece of code isn’t read transparent, that doesn’t mean that it suffers from all variations of side-effects. There are still yet more shades of grey which we can use to limit the damage caused by bugs and side-effects in our software. A property like write transparency for code that reads and writes to mutable data structures but performs no IO could be equally useful, just as the ST monad in Haskell, which cannot perform IO is useful for working with mutable state.

Unfortunately while our little definition is a rather interesting take on the mutable state issue, there are some rather serious caveats we still have to consider. The biggest problem we face here is that, while a read transparent function can read from mutable variables without any reprimands, it cannot use the unread mutable variable in the result, unless it uses it, still boxed. That is, if we returned a result lazily, the result might be different depending on when the result was used, definitely not something we want, and the primary reason that mutable state in Haskell is limited to the ST monad et cetera.

More concretely, we can return new mutable variables (since the result would always be equivalent), use the results from reading a mutable variable so long as we read it strictly before the function returns, and finally we can return the mutable variable verbatim as part of the result (something Haskell can do also). If any language implemented mutable variables unboxed however, they would not be usable in last context however, and you would always have to read from them strictly, leading to somewhat less flexibility in the language.

One last thing I’d like to add. The above definition is strikingly similar to something that might be rigorously defined and explored, but for some reason I haven’t done so in this post. Well, for all intents and purposes, I wouldn’t know where to start, at least not yet anyway. If and when I apply this property in an actual language implementation however, you can be sure I’ll have a rigorous writeup of it and it will likely be part of the languages spec too.

– Lorenz

I’ve been mulling over my old game development hobby for a little while now, and after messing around with Python a little I noticed that once again, there seems to be very little in the way of promising concurrent game object level languages floating around. At least languages that I’m aware of.

What I’m talking about exactly is game languages which allow the game objects themselves to participate in concurrent programming practices, without using intricate and complex locking sequences, or losing the right to talk directly to engine/library level services like physics or high-level game state (moving between the level and a menu for example).

Instead, almost all game level languages at the moment seem to be evangelizing the importance of being script level uncompiled beasts that require little to no real programming experience before becoming a productive member of the game code team!?

Of course I’m not saying that this is an inherently bad practice with the current level of technology floating around, but I do have to wonder whether this is still relevant for small team game development in the near multi-core parallelism future. Perhaps too far, but I think also relevant is the much slower pace of Open Source Game Development, which realistically speaking needs technology almost 3 years ahead of its time just to break even on an initial 1.0 release!

My question is actual reasonably simple despite the cynical tone up to this point… Can we realistically design a new object oriented DSL that contains the necessary concurrency techniques to allow programmers to write reliable and correct concurrent game code. This actually goes beyond just the engine code for which we’ve always been able to reasonably easily move to a more sophisticated language like Haskell but more towards the game specific stuff, which we cannot afford to bog down in complicated syntax and general side effect hostility.

I actually believe this is possible, and I’ve already begun planning the first steps towards writing some basic engine code that will underpin the project but I’m definitely more interested in seeing how effectively I can pin down the STM concurrency model into an object oriented syntax.

Ok… what about the language stuff…

I’ve actually been looking for a good excuse to both learn Haskell more fully (I’ve really only coded trivial examples in it so far), as well as properly exercise the Parsec combinator parser and finally, and perhaps most of all, design a new object model and object oriented programming language using that model.

The last, ironically may have to be restrained a little, but a concurrent perhaps slightly more conventional object oriented language may not be so bad. The point is that the project will involve a fairly comprehensive object oriented programming language, and one that is not only fully concurrency enabled but also tailored to game development tasks.

This is probably a good place to point out, that the conventional object oriented language I’m talking about here doesn’t include either C++, Java, Ruby or even the CLOS, but rather I’m talking specifically about the Smalltalk family of languages here. Its the work done on Smalltalk/Squeak, Self, Slate and more recently Newspeak that I find the most interesting, and the dialect I develop will likely incorporate many of the simpler innovations in the object systems they use.

The most critical issue that I’m aware of is the complexity added by the multi-dimensional objects used by most OO languages these days (including Smalltalk in this case). Rather than allowing the object state to exist in two (or more) dimensions I’ll be limiting them to a single flattened dimension similarly to record types, and the programmer will need to use either delegation/cooperation or composition in order to accomplish tasks in a reusable fashion. If you didn’t follow the dimension of state thing I’m actually just talking about Inheritance (another dimension might be Aspects, et cetera).

While I don’t want to go to much further into the syntax I would like to note that my intentions for this, apparently built in, concurrency will probably be in the form of an asynchronous send, paired with transaction support (which will actually be the only way to guarantee that data is written correctly). The asynchronous send, by definition, allows the receive to process it in a different thread… but since my little language is probably going to be more or less interpreted or at least green threaded, I’m pretty sure that I can just replace the async send operation as a plain old spawn operation.

The async message send in this case should provide a convenient way of signaling between game objects, and paired with the transactions (noting that very few Erlang processes don’t actively apply transactional semantics as well), I should have an effective way of implementing fully concurrent game code.

Well then… hopefully I don’t get killed between all of these projects and we’ll see something interesting come out of this stuff. Until then…

– Lorenz

If your’re interested in post-Smalltalk research, or more specifically the implementation of such technologies then you might be interested in keeping an eye out on the work being done by Ian Piumarta, et al.

Well, the good news is that a wiki has been setup for increased public communication about the project.

You can check it out over at…linky

–Lorenz