More Like this

1. Putting Gradual Types to Work

   https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-67438-0_4  

   Shivkumar, Bhargav ; Naudon, Enrique ; Ziarek, Lukasz ( January 2021 , Practical Aspects of Declarative Languages)

   Morales, J.F. ; Orchard, D. (Ed.)

   In this paper, we describe our experience incorporating gradual types in a statically typed functional language with Hindley-Milner style type inference. Where most gradually typed systems aim to improve static checking in a dynamically typed language, we approach it from the opposite perspective and promote dynamic checking in a statically typed language. Our approach provides a glimpse into how languages like SML and OCaml might handle gradual typing. We discuss our implementation and challenges faced—specifically how gradual typing rules apply to our representation of composite and recursive types. We review the various implementations that add dynamic typing to a statically typed language in order to highlight the different ways of mixing static and dynamic typing and examine possible inspirations while maintaining the gradual nature of our type system. This paper also discusses our motivation for adding gradual types to our language, and the practical benefits of doing so in our industrial setting. 

   more » « less
2. Corpse reviver: sound and efficient gradual typing via contract verification

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3434334  

   Moy, Cameron ; Nguyễn, Phúc C. ; Tobin-Hochstadt, Sam ; Van Horn, David ( January 2021 , Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages)

   Gradually typed programming languages permit the incremental addition of static types to untyped programs. To remain sound, languages insert run-time checks at the boundaries between typed and untyped code. Unfortunately, performance studies have shown that the overhead of these checks can be disastrously high, calling into question the viability of sound gradual typing. In this paper, we show that by building on existing work on soft contract verification, we can reduce or eliminate this overhead. Our key insight is that while untyped code cannot be trusted by a gradual type system, there is no need to consider only the worst case when optimizing a gradually typed program. Instead, we statically analyze the untyped portions of a gradually typed program to prove that almost all of the dynamic checks implied by gradual type boundaries cannot fail, and can be eliminated at compile time. Our analysis is modular, and can be applied to any portion of a program. We evaluate this approach on a dozen existing gradually typed programs previously shown to have prohibitive performance overhead—with a median overhead of 2.5× and up to 80.6× in the worst case—and eliminate all overhead in most cases, suffering only 1.5× overhead in the worst case. 

   more » « less
3. Gradual type theory

   https://doi.org/10.1017/S0956796821000125  

   NEW, MAX S. ; LICATA, DANIEL R. ; AHMED, AMAL ( January 2021 , Journal of Functional Programming)

   null (Ed.)

   Abstract Gradually typed languages are designed to support both dynamically typed and statically typed programming styles while preserving the benefits of each. Sound gradually typed languages dynamically check types at runtime at the boundary between statically typed and dynamically typed modules. However, there is much disagreement in the gradual typing literature over how to enforce complex types such as tuples, lists, functions and objects. In this paper, we propose a new perspective on the design of runtime gradual type enforcement: runtime type casts exist precisely to ensure the correctness of certain type-based refactorings and optimizations. For instance, for simple types, a language designer might desire that beta-eta equality is valid. We show that this perspective is useful by demonstrating that a cast semantics can be derived from beta-eta equality. We do this by providing an axiomatic account program equivalence in a gradual cast calculus in a logic we call gradual type theory (GTT). Based on Levy’s call-by-push-value, GTT allows us to axiomatize both call-by-value and call-by-name gradual languages. We then show that we can derive the behavior of casts for simple types from the corresponding eta equality principle and the assumption that the language satisfies a property called graduality , also known as the dynamic gradual guarantee. Since we can derive the semantics from the assumption of eta equality, we also receive a useful contrapositive: any observably different cast semantics that satisfies graduality must violate the eta equality. We show the consistency and applicability of our axiomatic theory by proving that a contract-based implementation using the lazy cast semantics gives a logical relations model of our type theory, where equivalence in GTT implies contextual equivalence of the programs. Since GTT also axiomatizes the dynamic gradual guarantee, our model also establishes this central theorem of gradual typing. The model is parameterized by the implementation of the dynamic types, and so gives a family of implementations that validate type-based optimization and the gradual guarantee. 

   more » « less
4. A transient semantics for Typed Racket

   https://doi.org/10.22152/programming-journal.org/2022/6/9  

   Greenman, Lazarek ( January 2022 , Programming)

   Mixed-typed languages enable programmers to link typed and untyped components in various ways. Some offer rich type systems to facilitate the smooth migration of untyped code to the typed world; others merely provide a convenient form of type Dynamic together with a conventional structural type system. Orthogonal to this dimension, Natural systems ensure the integrity of types with a sophisticated contract system, while Transient systems insert simple first-order checks at strategic places within typed code. Furthermore, each method of ensuring type integrity comes with its own blame-assignment strategy. Typed Racket has a rich migratory type system and enforces the types with a Natural semantics. Reticulated Python has a simple structural type system extended with Dynamic and enforces types with a Transient semantics. While Typed Racket satisfies the most stringent gradual-type soundness properties at a significant performance cost, Reticulated Python seems to limit the performance penalty to a tolerable degree and is nevertheless type sound. This comparison raises the question of whether Transient checking is applicable to and beneficial for a rich migratory type system. This paper reports on the surprising difficulties of adapting the Transient semantics of Reticulated Python to the rich migratory type system of Typed Racket. The resulting implementation, Shallow Typed Racket, is faster than the standard Deep Typed Racket but only when the Transient blame assignment strategy is disabled. For language designers, this report provides valuable hints on how to equip an existing compiler to support a Transient semantics. For theoreticians, the negative experience with Transient blame calls for a thorough investigation of this strategy. 

   more » « less
5. Type-Based Gradual Typing Performance Optimization

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3632931  

   Campora, John Peter ; Khan, Mohammad Wahiduzzaman ; Chen, Sheng ( January 2024 , Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages)

   Gradual typing has emerged as a popular design point in programming languages, attracting significant interests from both academia and industry. Programmers in gradually typed languages are free to utilize static and dynamic typing as needed. To make such languages sound, runtime checks mediate the boundary of typed and untyped code. Unfortunately, such checks can incur significant runtime overhead on programs that heavily mix static and dynamic typing. To combat this overhead without necessitating changes to the underlying implementations of languages, we present discriminative typing. Discriminative typing works by optimistically inferring types for functions and implementing an optimized version of the function based on this type. To preserve safety it also implements an un-optimized version of the function based purely on the provided annotations. With two versions of each function in hand, discriminative typing translates programs so that the optimized functions are called as frequently as possible while also preserving program behaviors.

   We have implemented discriminative typing in Reticulated Python and have evaluated its performance compared to guarded Reticulated Python. Our results show that discriminative typing improves the performance across 95% of tested programs, when compared to Reticulated, and achieves more than 4× speedup in more than 56% of these programs. We also compare its performance against a previous optimization approach and find that discriminative typing improved performance across 93% of tested programs, with 30% of these programs receiving speedups between 4 to 25 times. Finally, our evaluation shows that discriminative typing remarkably reduces the overhead of gradual typing on many mixed type configurations of programs.

   In addition, we have implemented discriminative typing in Grift and evaluated its performance. Our evaluation demonstrations that DT significantly improves performance of Grift

    

   more » « less