Search Results

Documents authored by Greenberg, Michael

Document
DOI: 10.4230/OASIcs.EVCS.2023.11
Reasoning About Paths in the Interface Graph

Authors: Michael Greenberg

Published in: OASIcs, Volume 109, Eelco Visser Commemorative Symposium (EVCS 2023)

Abstract
Clearly specified interfaces between software components are invaluable: development proceeds in parallel; implementation details are abstracted away; invariants are enforced; code is reused. But this abstraction comes with a cost: well chosen interfaces let related tasks be grouped together, but a running program interleaves tasks of all kinds. Reasoning about which values cross a given interface or which interfaces a value will cross is challenging. It is particularly hard to know that interfaces apply runtime enforcement mechanisms correctly: as programs run, values cross abstraction boundaries in subtle ways. One particular case of such reasoning - proving that a contract system checks contracts correctly at runtime [Christos Dimoulas et al., 2011; Christos Dimoulas et al., 2012] - uses a dynamic analysis to keep track of which interfaces are responsible for which values. The dynamic analysis works by giving an alternative semantics that "colors" values to match the components responsible for them. No program is ever run in this alternative semantics - it’s a formal tool to verify that the contract system’s enforcement is correct. In this short paper, we refine Dimoulas et al.’s dynamic analysis to more precisely track colors, phrasing our results graph theoretically: a value’s colors are a path in the interface graph of the original program. Our graph theoretic framing makes it easy to see that the dynamic analysis is subsumed by Eelco Visser’s scope graphs.
Cite as

Michael Greenberg. Reasoning About Paths in the Interface Graph. In Eelco Visser Commemorative Symposium (EVCS 2023). Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs), Volume 109, pp. 11:1-11:11, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2023)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{greenberg:OASIcs.EVCS.2023.11,
  author =	{Greenberg, Michael},
  title =	{{Reasoning About Paths in the Interface Graph}},
  booktitle =	{Eelco Visser Commemorative Symposium (EVCS 2023)},
  pages =	{11:1--11:11},
  series =	{Open Access Series in Informatics (OASIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-267-9},
  ISSN =	{2190-6807},
  year =	{2023},
  volume =	{109},
  editor =	{L\"{a}mmel, Ralf and Mosses, Peter D. and Steimann, Friedrich},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/OASIcs.EVCS.2023.11},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-177812},
  doi =		{10.4230/OASIcs.EVCS.2023.11},
  annote =	{Keywords: interfaces, components, lambda calculus, dynamic analysis}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2019.6
The Dynamic Practice and Static Theory of Gradual Typing

Authors: Michael Greenberg

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 136, 3rd Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2019)

Abstract
We can tease apart the research on gradual types into two `lineages': a pragmatic, implementation-oriented dynamic-first lineage and a formal, type-theoretic, static-first lineage. The dynamic-first lineage’s focus is on taming particular idioms - `pre-existing conditions' in untyped programming languages. The static-first lineage’s focus is on interoperation and individual type system features, rather than the collection of features found in any particular language. Both appear in programming languages research under the name "gradual typing", and they are in active conversation with each other. What are these two lineages? What challenges and opportunities await the static-first lineage? What progress has been made so far?
Cite as

Michael Greenberg. The Dynamic Practice and Static Theory of Gradual Typing. In 3rd Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2019). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 136, pp. 6:1-6:20, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2019)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{greenberg:LIPIcs.SNAPL.2019.6,
  author =	{Greenberg, Michael},
  title =	{{The Dynamic Practice and Static Theory of Gradual Typing}},
  booktitle =	{3rd Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2019)},
  pages =	{6:1--6:20},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-95977-113-9},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2019},
  volume =	{136},
  editor =	{Lerner, Benjamin S. and Bod{\'\i}k, Rastislav and Krishnamurthi, Shriram},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2019.6},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-105495},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2019.6},
  annote =	{Keywords: dynamic typing, gradual typing, static typing, implementation, theory, challenge problems}
}
Document
DOI: 10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2015.140
Tracking the Flow of Ideas through the Programming Languages Literature

Authors: Michael Greenberg, Kathleen Fisher, and David Walker

Published in: LIPIcs, Volume 32, 1st Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2015)

Abstract
How have conferences like ICFP, OOPSLA, PLDI, and POPL evolved over the last 20 years? Did generalizing the Call for Papers for OOPSLA in 2007 or changing the name of the umbrella conference to SPLASH in 2010 have any effect on the kinds of papers published there? How do POPL and PLDI papers compare, topic-wise? Is there related work that I am missing? Have the ideas in O'Hearn's classic paper on separation logic shifted the kinds of papers that appear in POPL? Does a proposed program committee cover the range of submissions expected for the conference? If we had better tools for analyzing the programming language literature, we might be able to answer these questions and others like them in a data-driven way. In this paper, we explore how topic modeling, a branch of machine learning, might help the programming language community better understand our literature.
Cite as

Michael Greenberg, Kathleen Fisher, and David Walker. Tracking the Flow of Ideas through the Programming Languages Literature. In 1st Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2015). Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs), Volume 32, pp. 140-155, Schloss Dagstuhl – Leibniz-Zentrum für Informatik (2015)

Copy BibTex To Clipboard

@InProceedings{greenberg_et_al:LIPIcs.SNAPL.2015.140,
  author =	{Greenberg, Michael and Fisher, Kathleen and Walker, David},
  title =	{{Tracking the Flow of Ideas through the Programming Languages Literature}},
  booktitle =	{1st Summit on Advances in Programming Languages (SNAPL 2015)},
  pages =	{140--155},
  series =	{Leibniz International Proceedings in Informatics (LIPIcs)},
  ISBN =	{978-3-939897-80-4},
  ISSN =	{1868-8969},
  year =	{2015},
  volume =	{32},
  editor =	{Ball, Thomas and Bodík, Rastislav and Krishnamurthi, Shriram and Lerner, Benjamin S. and Morriset, Greg},
  publisher =	{Schloss Dagstuhl -- Leibniz-Zentrum f{\"u}r Informatik},
  address =	{Dagstuhl, Germany},
  URL =		{https://drops.dagstuhl.de/entities/document/10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2015.140},
  URN =		{urn:nbn:de:0030-drops-50232},
  doi =		{10.4230/LIPIcs.SNAPL.2015.140},
  annote =	{Keywords: programming languages literature, topic models, irony}
}
Questions / Remarks / Feedback
X

Feedback for Dagstuhl Publishing


Thanks for your feedback!

Feedback submitted

Could not send message

Please try again later or send an E-mail
© 2023-2024 Schloss Dagstuhl – LZI GmbH Imprint Privacy Contact