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.

Existential Types are the flip side of generics

Generic types, as can now be seen in all the major programming languages have a flip side that has yet to be widely appreciated: existential types.

Variables whose types are generic may not be modified within a generic function (or class): they can be kept in variables, they can be passed to other functions (provided they too have been supplied to the generic function), but other than that they are opaque. Again, when a generic function (or class) is used, then the actual type binding for the generic must be provided – although that type may also be generic, in which case the enclosing entity must also be generic.

Existential types are often motivated by modules. A module can be seen to be equivalent to a record with its included functions: except that modules also typically encapsulate types too. Abstract data types are a closely related topic that also naturally connect to existential types (there is an old but still very relevant and readable article on the topic Abstract types have …

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 multiple…