Search for: All records

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.

Software contracts empower programmers to describe functional properties of components. When it comes to constraining effects, though, the literature offers only one-off solutions for various effects. It lacks a universal principle. This paper presents the design of an effectful contract system in the context of effect handlers. A key metatheorem shows that contracts cannot unduly interfere with a program's execution. An implementation of this design, along with an evaluation of its generality, demonstrates that the theory can guide practice.

Sound migratory typing envisions a safe and smooth refactoring of untyped code bases to typed ones. However, the cost of enforcing safety with run-time checks is often prohibitively high, thus performance regressions are a likely occurrence. Additional types can often recover performance, but choosing the right components to type is difficult because of the exponential size of the migratory typing lattice. In principal though, migration could be guided by off-the-shelf profiling tools. To examine this hypothesis, this paper follows the rational programmer method and reports on the results of an experiment on tens of thousands of performance-debugging scenarios via seventeen strategies for turning profiler output into an actionable next step. The most effective strategy is the use of deep types to eliminate the most costly boundaries between typed and untyped components; this strategy succeeds in more than 50% of scenarios if two performance degradations are tolerable along the way.

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.