Skip to main content

Late Binding in Programming Languages

Late binding is key to enhanced productivity in programming languages. I believe that this is the single most important reason why so-called dynamic typed languages are so popular.

This note is part of an ongoing ‘language design’ series which aims to look at some key aspects of programming language design.

What do we mean by late binding?

Simply put, a programmer should not have to say more than they mean at any particular time.

To see what I mean, consider a function that computes a person's name from a first and last name. In Star, I can write this:

fullName(P) is P.firstName()++P.lastName()

This constitutes a complete definition of the function: there is no need to declare types; furthermore this function will work with any type that has a first and last name.

Contract this with a typical well-crafted Java solution:

boolean fullName(Person P){
return P.firstName()+P.lastName();

Not so different one might argue.

Except that we have had to define a type Person; at best this is an interface and not a class. The Java fullName method will only work with objects of type Person.

In designing the Java version we have to find and/or create a type Person. In addition, we must make sure that all classes that we want to compute the full name of implement the Person type.

This last aspect can be a real productivity killer. Suppose that we want to be able to compute the full name of many different kinds of objects; then we must arrange them all to implement the Person type. This may not even be possible if the classes in question are from a library that you don't have the source to.

Late Binding does not mean dynamic typing

One of the common perceptions is that you lose the safety of a type checker if you want to allow late binding. This is not true; at least, it is not true for Star.

Star is a statically typed language which supports a range of type constraints. In the case of the fullName function, the constraint is that the type of P has the firstName and lastName attributes. (The details of how this is done are too gory to go into here.)

These constraints can be checked; so, for example, every time the fullName function is used on an argument, the checker can verify that the type of the argument is consistent with having a first and last name. This check can be performed at compile-time.

It is even possible (necessary) to go one step further and allow generic functions to use the fullName function.

Other forms of Late Binding

Late binding shows up in other ways. For example, when specifying an imported library of some form or other, it should be possible to declare the requirement for a library in terms of what is needed, rather than the name of the library. I.e., instead of:

import java.util.List;
import java.util.ArrayList;

we should be able to say:

require List of integer;

or some such expression.

The difference is that the former says — in the source code — which package to import whereas the latter merely declares a contract requirement. How the contract is fulfilled is a separate step; one that a smart compiler system may even be able to automate.

(Some language do work this way. Typically LISP language systems organize their modules in terms of requires and provides.)

Take Away

It can be hard to know what features should go into a programming language. Having a few principles to guide us make the task of designing a language more tractable.

In this case, the message is that programmers should be able to program in terms of their requirements, not the compiler's. This need not come at the expense of safety or of performance.

Popular posts from this blog

Comments Should be Meaningless

This is something of a counterintuitive idea: Comments should be meaningless What, I hear you ask, are you talking about? Comments should communicate to the reader! At least that is the received conventional wisdom handed does over the last few centuries (decades at least). Well, certainly, if you are programming in Assembler, or C, then yes, comments should convey meaning because the programming language cannot So, conversely, as a comment on the programming language itself, anytime the programmer feels the imperative to write a meaningful comment it is because the language is not able to convey the intent of the programmer. I have already noticed that I write far fewer comments in my Java programs than in my C programs.  That is because Java is able to capture more of my meaning and comments would be superfluous. So, if a language were able to capture all of my intentions, I would never need to write a comment. Hence the title of this blog.

Giving the customers what they want

I do not believe that I am an elitist , but at the same time, I wonder about that phrase. To me, it implies an abdication of responsibility. Which is better: to give the customer what he asks for or to solve the real problem? Here is what I mean. Occasionally, someone asks me for some tool/gadget/software program that strikes me as not really addressing the problem. This can be for any number of reasons; the customer has an immediate pain point and wants to address the specific requirement, the customer is already fixated on the technology and want that solution, the customer has been told that the answer is SOAP (and what was the question?). As a professional, that puts me in a dilemma: either I end up arguing with the customer or I hold my nose and give him what he so plainly wants even if I think that it is not the right answer. Given my temperament, it means that I usually end up contradicting the client and thereby losing the deal. Today I ended up doing that (I think, it may be

Minimum Viable Product

When was the last time you complained about the food in a restaurant? I thought so. Most people will complain if they are offended by the quality or service; but if the food and/or service is just underwhelming then they won't complain, they will simply not return to the restaurant. The same applies to software products, or to products of any kind. You will only get negative feedback from customers if they care enough to make the effort. In the meantime you are both losing out on opportunities and failing your core professional obligation. Minimum Viable Product speaks to a desire to make your customers design your product for you. But, to me, it represents a combination of an implicit insult and negligence. The insult is implicit in the term minimum. The image is one of laziness and contempt: just throw some mud on the wall and see if it sticks. Who cares about whether it meets a real need, or whether the customer is actually served. The negligence is more subtle but, in the end,