An official website of the United States government
Gradual typing has emerged as a promising typing discipline for reconciling static and dynamic typing, which have respective strengths and shortcomings. Thanks to its promises, gradual typing has gained tremendous momentum in both industry and academia. A main challenge in gradual typing is that, however, the performance of its programs can often be unpredictable, and adding or removing the type of a a single parameter may lead to wild performance swings. Many approaches have been proposed to optimize gradual typing performance, but little work has been done to aid the understanding of the performance landscape of gradual typing and navigating the migration process (which adds type annotations to make programs more static) to avert performance slowdowns. Motivated by this situation, this work develops a machine-learning-based approach to predict the performance of each possible way of adding type annotations to a program. On top of that, many supports for program migrations could be developed, such as finding the most performant neighbor of any given configuration. Our approach gauges runtime overheads of dynamic type checks inserted by gradual typing and uses that information to train a machine learning model, which is used to predict the running time of gradual programs. We have evaluated our approach on 12 Python benchmarks for both guarded and transient semantics. For guarded semantics, our evaluation results indicate that with only 40 training instances generated from each benchmark, the predicted times for all other instances differ on average by 4% from the measured times. For transient semantics, the time difference ratio is higher but the time difference is often within 0.1 seconds.
more »
« less
Learning Gradual Typing Performance
Gradual typing has emerged as a promising typing discipline for reconciling static and dynamic typing, which have respective strengths and shortcomings. Thanks to its promises, gradual typing has gained tremendous momentum in both industry and academia. A main challenge in gradual typing is that, however, the performance of its programs can often be unpredictable, and adding or removing the type of a a single parameter may lead to wild performance swings. Many approaches have been proposed to optimize gradual typing performance, but little work has been done to aid the understanding of the performance landscape of gradual typing and navigating the migration process (which adds type annotations to make programs more static) to avert performance slowdowns. Motivated by this situation, this work develops a machine-learning-based approach to predict the performance of each possible way of adding type annotations to a program. On top of that, many supports for program migrations could be developed, such as finding the most performant neighbor of any given configuration. Our approach gauges runtime overheads of dynamic type checks inserted by gradual typing and uses that information to train a machine learning model, which is used to predict the running time of gradual programs. We have evaluated our approach on 12 Python benchmarks for both guarded and transient semantics. For guarded semantics, our evaluation results indicate that with only 40 training instances generated from each benchmark, the predicted times for all other instances differ on average by 4% from the measured times. For transient semantics, the time difference ratio is higher but the time difference is often within 0.1 seconds.
more »
« less
- PAR ID:
- 10569813
- Editor(s):
- Aldrich, Jonathan; Salvaneschi, Guido
- Publisher / Repository:
- Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik
- Date Published:
- Volume:
- 313
- ISSN:
- 1868-8969
- ISBN:
- 978-3-95977-341-6
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 313-313
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Gradual typing performance type migration performance prediction machine learning Theory of computation → Type structures Computing methodologies → Machine learning Computing methodologies → Learning linear models
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: 27 pages; 4315287 bytes Other: application/pdf
- Size(s):
- 27 pages 4315287 bytes
- Right(s):
- Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license; info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Gradual typing allows programmers to use both static and dynamic typing in a single program. However, a well-known problem with sound gradual typing is that the interactions between static and dynamic code can cause significant performance degradation. These performance pitfalls are hard to predict and resolve, and discourage users from using gradual typing features. For example, when migrating to a more statically typed program, often adding a type annotation will trigger a slowdown that can be resolved by adding more annotations elsewhere, but since it is not clear where the additional annotations must be added, the easier solution is to simply remove the annotation. To address these problems, we develop: (1) a static cost semantics that accurately predicts the overhead of static-dynamic interactions in a gradually typed program, (2) a technique for efficiently inferring such costs for all combinations of inferrable type assignments in a program, and (3) a method for translating the results of this analysis into specific recommendations and explanations that can help programmers understand, debug, and optimize the performance of gradually typed programs. We have implemented our approach in Herder, a tool for statically analyzing the performance of different typing configurations for Reticulated Python programs. An evaluation on 15 Python programs shows that Herder can use this analysis to accurately and efficiently recommend type assignments that optimize the performance of these programs without sacrificing the safety guarantees provided by static typing.more » « less
-
Abstract Gradual typing allows programs to enjoy the benefits of both static typing and dynamic typing. While it is often desirable to migrate a program from more dynamically typed to more statically typed or vice versa, gradual typing itself does not provide a way to facilitate this migration. This places the burden on programmers who have to manually add or remove type annotations. Besides the general challenge of adding type annotations to dynamically typed code, there are subtle interactions between these annotations in gradually typed code that exacerbate the situation. For example, to migrate a program to be as static as possible, in general, all possible combinations of adding or removing type annotations from parameters must be tried out and compared. In this paper, we address this problem by developing migrational typing , which efficiently types all possible ways of replacing dynamic types with fully static types for a gradually typed program. The typing result supports automatically migrating a program to be as static as possible or introducing the least number of dynamic types necessary to remove a type error. The approach can be extended to support user-defined criteria about which annotations to modify. We have implemented migrational typing and evaluated it on large programs. The results show that migrational typing scales linearly with the size of the program and takes only 2–4 times longer than plain gradual typing.more » « less
-
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 presentdiscriminative 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
-
In gradual typing, different languages perform different dynamic type checks for the same program even though the languages have the same static type system. This raises the question of whether, given a gradually typed language, the combination of the translation that injects checks in well-typed terms and the dynamic semantics that determines their behavior sufficiently enforce the static type system of the language. Neither type soundness, nor complete monitoring, nor any other meta-theoretic property of gradually typed languages to date provides a satisfying answer. In response, we present vigilance, a semantic analytical instrument that defines when the check-injecting translation and dynamic semantics of a gradually typed language are adequate for its static type system. Technically, vigilance asks if a given translation-and-semantics combination enforces the complete run-time typing history of a value, which consists of all of the types associated with the value. We show that the standard combination for so-called Natural gradual typing is vigilant for the standard simple type system, but the standard combination for Transient gradual typing is not. At the same time, the standard combination for Transient is vigilant for a tag type system but the standard combination for Natural is not. Hence, we clarify the comparative type-level reasoning power between the two most studied approaches to sound gradual typing. Furthermore, as an exercise that demonstrates how vigilance can guide design, we introduce and examine a new theoretical static gradual type system, dubbed truer, that is stronger than tag typing and more faithfully reflects the type-level reasoning power that the dynamic semantics of Transient gradual typing can guarantee.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Conference Paper:
- https://doi.org/10.4230/LIPIcs.ECOOP.2024.21
