[m-dev.] Unique Modes and Transaction Logic
paul at bone.id.au
Mon Jul 21 18:24:17 AEST 2014
On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 04:13:44PM -0400, Marcus Troyka wrote:
> First I'd like to start by taking back anything I might have implied
> about OCaml being pure. Their 'reference cells' which are used for
> mutable variables are basically explicit pointers with no type safety.
> OCaml also has some other issues that don't make sense, but that's
> another story.
> On 07/20/2014 04:00 AM, Mark Brown wrote:
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts in any case.
> > I'm still just guessing what problem you are solving, though. The
> > first of the papers you referenced has two practical examples, one on
> > financial transactions and one on robot actions. The first example can
> > be expressed in Mercury using unique modes (section 5.1 of the
> > reference manual), and the second using "mostly unique" modes (section
> > 5.2) and committed choice non-determinism (sections 6.4 and 6.5). So
> > Mercury's modes appear to be sufficient to address the problems raised
> > by this paper, at least.
> Well, mostly I was just considering mercury as a whole, as it applies to
> AI, databases, and general programming. The particular problem /I'm/
> trying to solve is a bit different though. Basically, I don't like the
> way most operating systems, kernels, and desktop environments are
> designed in general, and I don't like the languages that they're built
> with for various reasons. Updates tend to break as many things as they
> fix, and every OS seems to have as many disadvantages as advantages. I
> figure to start with I should address the most fundamental problems in
> OS and general program design, and then choose better algorithms and
> organization from there. Currently there are no pure declarative
> languages which are pure enough, usable enough, or efficient enough for
> that sort of usage, but not because it isn't possible.
> > Yes, perfect static determinism checking is not possible in general;
> > see the discussion in section 6.3. I dare say it is not possible to
> > prove much about `assert'.
> In logic languages, no. In functional languages it's pretty easy (and
> all functions have to be det anyway).
> > (Transaction logic is not tied to `assert', though; you can choose a
> > different set of elementary operations. If instead of `assert' there
> > was an elementary operation like Mercury's map.set, that replaced any
> > existing row that had the same input values, then proving determinism
> > can be easy.)
> I was hoping to end up with something that looked more like logic, but
> that doesn't seem too possible.
> > I think Paul just meant that meta-interpretation like Prolog or Scheme
> > is not one of Mercury's goals, not that building
> > compilers/interpreters in general is not a goal.
> It's very possible that transaction logic wouldn't translate well to
> fully compiled code. Given that mercury has other ways of handling those
> sorts of issues it doesn't seem like it should be necessary anyway.
> > For my money, the biggest advantage of logic programming over
> > functional programming is that you can have multiple output arguments.
> > In functional syntax, if a procedure has more than one output you are
> > forced to either cram everything into the one return value, or else
> > make use of side effects.
> I should mention that C carries that same limitation, but in practise it
> doesn't usually matter. The way side effects are used in OO is a bit
> different, but in functional programming a major advantage is that since
> functions only produce one output value (and are always det) they can
> use evaluate-in-place semantics, which are easy to read and understand.
> With side effects, since unique outputs can't be evaluated directly,
> it's not so much of an issue if a function returns a unique output as
> well as a (single) standard one, such as with io.read_line_as_string(X,
> !IO), and you can still pass "!IO" as an input. Side effects in pure
> functional code face somewhat different issues than in pure logic, but
> that's another topic.
> On 07/20/2014 04:16 AM, Paul Bone wrote:
> > I think this depends on your definition of an object. If this definition
> > says that an object has state, and state may be modified, then unless you
> > make the effect of modifying state part of a method's declaration (see effect
> > typing) then yes, class-based OO programming has side-effects.
> The main difference between an 'object' and a 'module' is that an object
> can carry persistent local state and have instances, whereas modules
> only provide procedures (with exclusively local variables).
And that leads to the important distinction that an object breaks
referential transperancy but a module's pure procedures don't.
> > Note that in prototype-based OO programming[2, 3] modifying an object creates
> > a new object rather than destructively modifying the existing object, so it
> > does not need to have side effects. IMHO prototype-based OO programming has
> > it's own issues, in particular whether a given object implements a given
> > method is not decidable at compile time, so it must be dynamically checked
> > rather than statically checked.
> > 1. http://disciple.ouroborus.net/
> > 2. http://selflanguage.org/
> > 3. http://old.jorgenschaefer.de/software/prometheus/prometheus.html
> That's not actually how prototyping works, which varies from language to
> language. The main (useful) features of prototyping are delegation
> (which is very elegant) and that reusable code (inheritance) can be
> extracted from (whole text copied) prototypes /after/ the code has been
> implemented rather than having to consider it beforehand.
I actually know very little about prototype OO, so you're probably right. I
only mentioned it because as far as I understood, it could be implemented in
a pure functional language, and a class-based OO language can't. So it was
relevant to the question of whether an OO programming needs to be inherently
More information about the developers