Abstract. Higher-order programming languages (i.e., languages in which procedures or labels can occur as values) are usually defined by interpreters that are themselves written in a programming language based on the lambda calculus (i.e., an applicative language such as pure LISP). Examples include McCarthy’s definition of LISP, Landin’s SECD machine, the Vienna definition of PL/I, Reynolds ’ definitions of GEDANKEN, and recent unpublished work by L. Morris and C. Wadsworth. Such definitions can be classified according to whether the interpreter contains higher-order functions, and whether the order of application (i.e., call by value versus call by name) in the defined language depends upon the order of application in the defining language. As an example, we consider the definition of a simple applicative programming language by means of an interpreter written in a similar language. Definitions in each of the above classifications are derived from one another by informal but constructive methods. The treatment of imperative features such as jumps and assignment is also discussed.

The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of informal claims on the relative expressive power of programming languages, but there is no framework for formalizing such statements nor for deriving interesting consequences. As a first step in this direction, we develop a formal notion of expressiveness and investigate its properties. To validate the theory, we analyze some widely held beliefs about the expressive power of several extensions of functional languages. Based on these results, we believe that our system correctly captures many of the informal ideas on expressiveness, and that it constitutes a foundation for further research in this direction. 1 Comparing Programming Languages The literature on programming languages contains an abundance of informal claims on the expressive power of programming languages. Arguments in these contexts typically assert the expressibility or non-expressibility of programming constructs relative to a language. Unfortunately, pro...

We give a brief account of the discoveries of continuations and related concepts by, A. Van Wijngaarden , A. W. Mazurkiewicz , F. L. Morris , C. P. Wadsworth , J. H. Morris , M. J. Fischer , and S. K. Abdali.

. Any multiprocessing facility must include three features: elementary exclusion, data protection, and process saving. While elementary exclusion must rest on some hardware facility (e.g., a test-and-set instruction), the other two requirements are fulfilled by features already present in applicative languages. Data protection may be obtained through the use of procedures (closures or funargs), and process saving may be obtained through the use of the catch operator. The use of catch, in particular, allows an elegant treatment of process saving. We demonstrate these techniques by writing the kernel and some modules for a multiprocessing system. The kernel is very small. Many functions which one would normally expect to find inside the kernel are completely decentralized. We consider the implementation of other schedulers, interrupts, and the implications of these ideas for language design. 1. Introduction In the past few years, researchers have made progress in understanding the mecha...

Permission is hereby granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of this document without royalty or fee. Permission is granted to quote excerpts from this documented provided the original source is properly cited. ii When separately written programs are composed so that they may cooperate, they may instead destructively interfere in unanticipated ways. These hazards limit the scale and functionality of the software systems we can successfully compose. This dissertation presents a framework for enabling those interactions between components needed for the cooperation we intend, while minimizing the hazards of destructive interference. Great progress on the composition problem has been made within the object paradigm, chiefly in the context of sequential, single-machine programming among benign components. We show how to extend this success to support robust composition of concurrent and potentially malicious components distributed over potentially malicious machines. We present E, a distributed, persistent, secure programming language, and CapDesk, a virus-safe desktop built in E, as embodiments of the techniques we explain.

Dynamic granularity estimation is a new technique for automatically identifying expressions in functional languages for parallel evaluation. Expressions with little computation relative to thread-creation costs should evaluate sequentially for maximum performance. Static identification of such threads is however difficult. Therefore, dynamic granularity estimation has compile-time and run-time components: Abstract interpretation statically identifies functions whose complexity depends on data structure sizes; the run-time system maintains approximations to these sizes. Compiler-inserted checks consult this size information to make thread creation decisions dynamically. We describe dynamic granularity estimation for a list-based functional language. Extension to general recursive data structures and imperative operations is possible. Performance measurements of dynamic granularity estimation in a parallel ML implementation on a shared-memory machine demonstrate the possibility of large...

. We study the implications for the expressive power of call/cc of upward continuations, specifically the idiom of using a continuation twice. Although such control effects were known to Landin and Reynolds when they invented J and escape, the forebears of call/cc, they still act as a conceptual pitfall for some attempts to reason about continuations. We use this idiom to refute some recent conjectures about equivalences in a language with continuations, but no other effects. This shows that first-class continuations as given by call/cc have greater expressive power than one would expect from goto or exits. Keywords: call/cc, continuations, upward continuations, expressiveness, program equivalence. 1. Introduction You can enter a room once, and yet leave it twice. (Peter Landin) A common informal explanation of continuations is the comparison with forward goto. This is in some sense a very apt simile: forward gotos obviously do not give rise to loops, and continuations, without some ...

. In a simply-typed, call-by-value (CBV) language with first-class continuations, the usual CBV fixpoint operator can be defined in terms of a simple, infinitelylooping iteration primitive. We first consider a natural but flawed definition, based on exceptions and "iterative deepening" of finite unfoldings, and point out some of its shortcomings. Then we present the proper construction using full first-class continuations, with both an informal derivation and a proof that the behavior of the defined operator faithfully mimics a "built-in" recursion primitive. In fact, given an additional uniformity assumption, the construction is a two-sided inverse of the usual definition of iteration from recursion. Continuing, we show that the CBV looping primitive is in fact the direct-style equivalent of a continuation-passing-style fixpoint, and that this correspondence extends all the way to traditional definitions of these operators in terms of reflexive types. 1. Introduction 1.1. Background ...

Concurrent programming enjoys a proliferation of languages but suffers from the lack of a general method of language comparison. In particular, concurrent (as well as sequential) programming languages can-not be usefully distinguished based on complexity-theoretic considerations, since most of them are Turing-complete. Nevertheless, differences between program-ming languages matter, else we would not have invented so many of them. We develop a general method for comparing concur-rent programming languages based on their algebraic (structural) complexity, and, using this method, achieve separation results among many well-known concurrent languages. The method is not restricted to concurrent languages. It can be used to compare the algebraic complexity of abstract machine models, other families of programming languages, logics, and, more generaly, any family of lan-guages with some syntactic operations and a notion of semantic equivalence. The method can also be used to compare the algebraic complexity of families of opera-tions wit hin a language or across languages. We note that using the method we were able to compare lan-guages and computational models that do not have a common semantic basis.

This note is a historical survey of Christopher Strachey's influence on the development of semantic models of assignment and storage management in procedural languages.