An official website of the United States government
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
Corpse reviver: sound and efficient gradual typing via contract verification
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
- Award ID(s):
- 1846350
- PAR ID:
- 10603106
- Publisher / Repository:
- Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Proceedings of the ACM on Programming Languages
- Volume:
- 5
- Issue:
- POPL
- ISSN:
- 2475-1421
- Format(s):
- Medium: X Size: p. 1-28
- Size(s):
- p. 1-28
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Context: Gradually-typed languages allow typed and untyped code to interoperate, but typically come with significant drawbacks. In some languages, the types are unreliable; in others, communication across type boundaries can be extremely expensive; and still others allow only limited forms of interoperability. The research community is actively seeking a sound, fast, and expressive approach to gradual typing. Inquiry: This paper describes Static Python, a language developed by engineers at Instagram that has proven itself sound, fast, and reasonably expressive in production. Static Python’s approach to gradual types is essentially a programmer-tunable combination of the concrete and transient approaches from the literature. Concrete types provide full soundness and low performance overhead, but impose nonlocal constraints. Transient types are sound in a shallow sense and easier to use; they help to bridge the gap between untyped code and typed concrete code. Approach: We evaluate the language in its current state and develop a model that captures the essence of its approach to gradual types. We draw upon personal communication, bug reports, and the Static Python regression test suite to develop this model. Knowledge: Our main finding is that the gradual soundness that arises from a mix of concrete and transient types is an effective way to lower the maintenance cost of the concrete approach. We also find that method-based JIT technology can eliminate the costs of the transient approach. On a more technical level, this paper describes two contributions: a model of Static Python and a performance evaluation of Static Python. The process of formalization found several errors in the implementation, including fatal errors. Grounding: Our model of Static Python is implemented in PLT Redex and tested using property-based soundness tests and 265 tests from the Static Python regression suite. This paper includes a small core of the model to convey the main ideas of the Static Python approach and its soundness. Our performance claims are based on production experience in the Instagram web server. Migrations to Static Python in the server have caused a 3.7\% increase in requests handled per second at maximum CPU load. Importance: Static Python is the first sound gradual language whose piece-meal application to a realistic codebase has consistently improved performance. Other language designers may wish to replicate its approach, especially those who currently maintain unsound gradual languages and are seeking a path to soundness.more » « less
-
Chin, WN; Xu, Z (Ed.)Static typing and dynamic typing have respective strengths and weaknesses, and a language often commits to one typing discipline and inherits the qualities, good or bad. Gradual typing has been developed to reconcile these typing disciplines, allowing a single program to mix both static and dynamic typing. It protects soundness of typed regions with runtime checks when values flown into them do not have required static types. One issue with gradual typing is that such checks can incur significant performance overhead. Previous work on performance has focused on coarse-grained gradual typing where each module (file) has to be fully typed or untyped. In contrast, the performance of fine-grained gradual typing where each single parameter can be partially-typed (such as specifying the parameter as a list without giving element type) has not been investigated. Motivated by this situation, this paper systematically investigates performance of fine-grained gradual typing by studying the performance of more than 1 million programs. These programs are drawn from seven commonly-used benchmarks with different types for parameters: some parameters are untyped, some are statically typed, and others are partially statically typed. The paper observes many interesting phenomena that were previously unknown to the research community. They provide insights into future research directions of understanding, predicting, and optimizing gradual typing performance as well as migrating gradual programs towards more staticmore » « 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
-
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
