Skip to main content

Too Many Moving Parts

A common, if somewhat informal, observation about a large code base is that there are "too many moving parts" in it. In my experience, this is especially true for large Java systems but is probably universally true.


What do we mean by ‘too many moving parts’?


Simply put, there is always a significant semantic gap between a programming language and the program. The larger this gap, the more that has to be expressed in the language, as opposed to simply using it.


For example, consider the problem of traversing a recursive tree structure. In Java, we can iterate over an Iterable; structure using a loop, for example, to count elements:



int count = 0;
for(E el:tree)
{
  count++;
}

If the Tree class did not implement Iterable we would be forced to construct an explicit iterator (or worse, write a recursive one-off function):



int count = 0;
for(Iterator<E> it=tree.iterator(); it.hasNext();)
{
  E el = it.next();
  count++;
}

This version illustrates what happens when a programming language does not quite meet us halfway in our programming task. There is a lot of extra clutter (managing the iterator) that makes it hard to see what is really going on.


In this case, Java's for notation makes it significantly easier to see the program. However, there are many cases where this is not true. For example, you cannot use a similar technique for reading files, searching or removing elements from a tree, etc. etc.


Language Extensions


One way of reducing clutter is to permit the programmer to extend the language. Of course, the designers of Java set their face against this — there is no macro facility in Java — for a reasonable if misguided reason: to prevent programmers lying to each other.


The Star language does permit language extensions to be introduced by the programmer. This has the effect of encapsulating not only data abstractions but also control abstractions.


For example, to count the elements of a tree in Star, we can do:



var count:=0;
for E in tree do
  count := count+1;

The program depends on the programmer implementing the type contract for _search and a macro expansion rule:



# for ?Ptn in ?Exp do ?Act ==>
  __search(Exp,procedure(X){ if X matches Ptn then Act})

No apologies for the macro definition itself, but the effect is that the language has been lifted into one that fits the requirements more closely. This, in turn, reduces the semantic gap between the language as used by the programmer and the application.



Of course, there is quite a bit more to reducing clutter than macro definitions. However, it should be an important goal of language design to ensure that programmers can express themselves with minimum extraneous concepts.

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.

Safe and effective software

Someone recently asked me why I was working on the particular topics that I was interested in. I am afraid that in the heat of the moment I had a reasonable but ultimately lame answer (something about reducing friction in the marketplace). In fact, the true answer is simpler and much more powerful. I want to be part of a 'professional' industry, and I believe that we are not really there yet. It is a constant source of amazement to me that there have not been any class action lawsuits against certain high profile software companies. I like the phrase safe and effective , which describes the basic requirements for medicines of course, but should be equally applicable to software. What would the benefits of being able to label a system safe and effective? Primarily it means that someone using the system has some assurance that the software will do what it is supposed to do, and that it wont lead you into trouble. Of course, if you take too many aspirin, or if you misuse a softwar

Concept Oriented Markup

I have long been frustrated with all the different text mark up languages and word processors that I have used. There are many reasons for this; but the biggest issue is that markups (including very powerful ones like TeX) are not targeted at the kind of stuff I write. Nowadays, it seems archaic to still be thinking in terms of sections and chapters. The world is linked and that applies to the kind of technical writing that I do. I believe that the issue is fundamental. A concept like "section" is inherently about the structure of a document. But, what I want to focus on are concepts like "example", "definition", and "function type". A second problem is that, in a complex environment, the range of documentation that is available to an individual reader is actually composed of multiple sources. Javadoc exemplifies this: an individual library may be documented using Javadoc into a single HTML tree. However, most programmers require access to multip