Search for: All records

Equipping an existing programming language with a gradual type system requires two major steps. The first and most visible one in academia is to add a notation for types and a type checking apparatus. The second, highly practical one is to provide a type veneer for the large number of existing untyped libraries; doing so enables typed components to import pieces of functionality and get their uses type-checked, without any changes to the libraries. When programmers create such typed veneers for libraries, they make mistakes that persist and cause trouble. The question is whether the academically investigated run-time checks for gradual type systems assist programmers with debugging such mistakes. This paper provides a first, surprising answer to this question via a rational-programmer investigation: run-time checks alone are typically less helpful than the safety checks of the underlying language. Combining Natural run-time checks with blame, however, provides significantly superior debugging hints. 

Programming language theoreticians develop blame assignment systems and prove blame theorems for gradually typed programming languages. Practical implementations of gradual typing almost completely ignore the idea of blame assignment. This contrast raises the question whether blame provides any value to the working programmer and poses the challenge of how to evaluate the effectiveness of blame assignment strategies. This paper contributes (1) the first evaluation method for blame assignment strategies and (2) the results from applying it to three different semantics for gradual typing. These results cast doubt on the theoretical effectiveness of blame in gradual typing. In most scenarios, strategies with imprecise blame assignment are as helpful to a rationally acting programmer as strategies with provably correct blame. 

Contract systems, especially of the higher-order flavor, go hand in hand with blame. The pragmatic purpose of blame is to narrow down the code that a programmer needs to examine to locate the bug when the contract system discovers a contract violation. Or so the literature on higher-order contracts claims. In reality, however, there is neither empirical nor theoretical evidence that connects blame with the location of bugs. The reputation of blame as a tool for weeding out bugs rests on anecdotes about how programmers use contracts to shift blame and their attention from one part of a program to another until they discover the source of the problem. This paper aims to fill the apparent gap and shed light to the relation between blame and bugs. To that end, we introduce an empirical methodology for investigating whether, for a given contract system, it is possible to translate blame information to the location of bugs in a systematic manner. Our methodology is inspired by how programmers attempt to increase the precision of the contracts of a blamed component in order to shift blame to another component, which becomes the next candidate for containing the bug. In particular, we construct a framework that enables us to ask for a contract system whether (i) the process of blame shifting causes blame to eventually settle to the component that contains the bug; and (ii) every shift moves blame ``closer'' to the faulty component. Our methodology offers a rigorous means for evaluating the pragmatics of contract systems, and we employ it to analyze Racket's contract system. Along the way, we uncover subtle points about the pragmatic meaning of contracts and blame in Racket: (i) the expressiveness of Racket's off-the-shelf contract language is not sufficient to narrow down the blamed portion of the code to the faulty component in all cases; and (ii) contracts that trigger state changes (even unexpectedly, perhaps in the runtime system's data structures or caches) interfere with program evaluation in subtle ways and thus blame shifting can lead programmers on a detour when searching for a bug. These points highlight how evaluations such as ours suggest fixes to language design.