Downloads & Free Reading Options - Results

There is often a sort of a protocol associated to each class, stating when and how certain methods should be called. Given that this protocol is, if at all, described in the documentation accompanying the class, current mainstream object-oriented languages cannot provide for the verification of client code adherence against the sought class behaviour. We have defined a class-based concurrent object-oriented language that formalises such protocols in the form of usage types. Usage types are attached to class definitions, allowing for the specification of (1) the available methods, (2) the tests clients must perform on the result of methods, and (3) the object status - linear or shared - all of which depend on the object's state. Our work extends the recent approach on modular session types by eliminating channel operations, and defining the method call as the single communication primitive in both sequential and concurrent settings. In contrast to previous works, we define a single category for objects, instead of distinct categories for linear and for shared objects, and let linear objects evolve into shared ones. We introduce a standard sync qualifier to prevent thread interference in certain operations on shared objects. We formalise the language syntax, the operational semantics, and a type system that enforces by static typing that methods are called only when available, and by a single client if so specified in the usage type. We illustrate the language via a complete example.

There is often a sort of a protocol associated to each class, stating when and how certain methods should be called. Given that this protocol is, if at all, described in the documentation accompanying the class, current mainstream object-oriented languages cannot provide for the verification of client code adherence against the sought class behaviour. We have defined a class-based concurrent object-oriented language that formalises such protocols in the form of usage types. Usage types are attached to class definitions, allowing for the specification of (1) the available methods, (2) the tests clients must perform on the result of methods, and (3) the object status - linear or shared - all of which depend on the object's state. Our work extends the recent approach on modular session types by eliminating channel operations, and defining the method call as the single communication primitive in both sequential and concurrent settings. In contrast to previous works, we define a single category for objects, instead of distinct categories for linear and for shared objects, and let linear objects evolve into shared ones. We introduce a standard sync qualifier to prevent thread interference in certain operations on shared objects. We formalise the language syntax, the operational semantics, and a type system that enforces by static typing that methods are called only when available, and by a single client if so specified in the usage type. We illustrate the language via a complete example.

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing, caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As a result, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrent programs, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Language designers are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrent programming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, the claim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported by purely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In this paper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programming languages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs and writing correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoiding the bias that might be introduced during the training phase and when interpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use of self-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjective decisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our design to a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreaded Java and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academic setting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participants had previous training in Java Threads.

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing, caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As a result, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrent programs, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Language designers are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrent programming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, the claim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported by purely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In this paper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programming languages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs and writing correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoiding the bias that might be introduced during the training phase and when interpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use of self-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjective decisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our design to a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreaded Java and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academic setting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participants had previous training in Java Threads.

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing, caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As a result, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrent programs, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Language designers are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrent programming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, the claim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported by purely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In this paper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programming languages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs and writing correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoiding the bias that might be introduced during the training phase and when interpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use of self-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjective decisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our design to a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreaded Java and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academic setting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participants had previous training in Java Threads.

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing, caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As a result, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrent programs, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Language designers are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrent programming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, the claim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported by purely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In this paper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programming languages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs and writing correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoiding the bias that might be introduced during the training phase and when interpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use of self-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjective decisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our design to a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreaded Java and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academic setting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participants had previous training in Java Threads.

Concurrency has been rapidly gaining importance in general-purpose computing, caused by the recent turn towards multicore processing architectures. As a result, an increasing number of developers have to learn to write concurrent programs, a task that is known to be hard even for the expert. Language designers are therefore working on languages that promise to make concurrent programming "easier" than using traditional thread libraries. However, the claim that a new language is more usable than another cannot be supported by purely theoretical considerations, but calls for empirical studies. In this paper, we present the design of a study to compare concurrent programming languages with respect to comprehending and debugging existing programs and writing correct new programs. A critical challenge for such a study is avoiding the bias that might be introduced during the training phase and when interpreting participants' solutions. We address these issues by the use of self-study material and an evaluation scheme that exposes any subjective decisions of the corrector, or eliminates them altogether. We apply our design to a comparison of two object-oriented languages for concurrency, multithreaded Java and SCOOP (Simple Concurrent Object-Oriented Programming), in an academic setting. We obtain results in favor of SCOOP even though the study participants had previous training in Java Threads.

CST is a programming language based on Smalltalk-80 that supports concurrency using lock, asynchronous messages, and distributed objects. Distributed objects have their state distributed across many nodes of a machine, but are referred to by a single name. Distributed objects are capable of processing many messages simultaneously and can be used to efficiently connect together large collections of objects. They can be used to construct a number of useful abstractions for concurrency. This paper describes the CST language, gives examples of its use, and discusses an initial implementation. Keywords: Programming languages.