I'm looking for a library to help me solve a constraint based logic problem where I need to schedule a number of different events of varying duration. The events have different attributes associated with them and my main issue is that I need to encode "preferences" based on these attributes. These preferences aren't hard constraints, but I would like to maximise how well they are satisfied in the solution. There are also different preferences of competing priorities.
I've taken a look at a few constraint solvers (Sat4j, clasp, Glucose, GlueMiniSat, etc.) but from what I've seen they all seem to only deal with fixed constraints, and setting up preferences would be non-trivial.
I don't care too much about what technology/language it's in - I'm happy to write a wrapper around it.
Absolutely, Choco Solver is a powerful Java constraint solver that is often used for scheduling and planning.
Let's take the following example:
"it would be nice if x = 10"
You can encode preferences in different ways.
1) through variables and constraints.
1.1) reify the constraint with a binary variables
ICF.arithm(x,"=",10).reifyWith(b);
it basically means b = 1 <=> x = 10 (so the constraint may or may not be satisfied), then you can maximise b (possibly with a weight)
1.2) through gap variables
solver.post(ICF.arithm(x,'-',gap,"=",10);
then you can minimise the absolute value of gap (possibly with a weight)
to the constraint.
2) through search : when solving the problem ask the search strategy to try x=10 before trying another value. There is not optimality proof but it works quite well in practice.
Hope this help. Please feel free to contact us for more support on Choco Solver www.cosling.com
best,
I think OptaPlanner is a tool that can help you to solve this problem, check this:
OptaPlanner is a constraint satisfaction solver. It optimizes business
resource planning. Every organization faces scheduling puzzles: assign
a limited set of constrained resources (employees, assets, time and
money) to provide products or services to customers. OptaPlanner
optimizes such planning problems to do more business with less
resources. Use cases include Vehicle Routing, Employee Rostering, Job
Scheduling, Bin Packing and many more.
OptaPlanner is a lightweight, embeddable planning engine. It enables
normal Java™ programmers to solve optimization problems efficiently.
Constraints apply on plain domain objects and can reuse existing code.
There’s no need to input difficult mathematical equations. Under the
hood, OptaPlanner combines sophisticated optimization heuristics and
metaheuristics (such as Tabu Search, Simulated Annealing and Late
Acceptance) with very efficient score calculation.
OptaPlanner is open source software, released under the Apache
Software License. It is written in 100% pure Java™, runs on any JVM
and is available in the Maven Central repository too.
Source:
http://www.optaplanner.org/
It's part of Drools, which has another interesting tools:
http://www.drools.org/
Another actively-maintained library is "choco-solver".
website
github
Another alternative is the Gecode Toolkit. It is an open-source and modern Constraint Programming Solver.
i am using the Alloy api to generate some models.
Recently I realized that Alloy generates an isomorph models.
Is symmetry breaking default?
kind regards,
Yes, symmetry breaking is on by default. (Actually, I'm not aware of any way to turn it off, so "default" may not be quite the right word to use for it.)
If you find multiple isomorphic models among your results, it is because the Alloy Analyzer makes a performance / symmetry-breaking tradeoff. The tradeoff is discussed following section 5.2.1 of Software abstractions:
[The Analyzer] generates symmetry-breaking constraints from the model, and conjoins them to the analysis constraint. If they were perfect, these constraints would rule out all but one assignment in each equivalence class, but that turns out to require very large symmetry-breaking constraints, which would overload the solver and actually damage performance. The analyzer therefore generates a much smaller constraint, which breaks only some of the symmetries, but in practice eliminates a very high proportion (over 99%) of the assignments.
Is it possible for a generalisation in UML to be implemented in Simatic SCL code (or Structured text code)?
The definition of a Generalisation in UML:
A generalisation is a relationship between a morew general classifier and a
more specific classifier. Each Instance of the specific classifier is also an
indirect instance of the general clasifier. Thus, the specific classifier
inherits the features of the more general classifier.
Features specified for instances of the general classifier are implicitly
specified for instances of the specific classifier. Any constraint applying
to instances of the general classifier also applies to instances of the
specific classifier.
In general the answer to this is no, not really. All means of programming PLCs (ladder, ST, FBD, etc) are generally only very lightly abstracted from the actual machine code. They are closer to assembly wrappers than to anything we would think of as a modern development language. Structured Text is closer to very primitive Pascal - it lacks most any sort of object oriented features.
The notion is that PLCs and PLC programmers have long since been used to an approach of extreme micromanagement when it comes to developing programs for them. The reasons for this are many - some more valid than others. Scott Whitlock wrote a good bit here outlining some of those reasons. A big one is that maintenance guys on the factory floor are often the ones trying to troubleshoot the machines and having clear, non-abstract, state-machine information available to them is much more valuable than the need for an elegant, minimal formulation to stroke the ego of the system developer.
PLC programming is a ruthlessly practical industry. If you have the choice between something 10% more practical and something 90% more elegant, the practical solution will always win.
With that said - there are some who are playing in this area. I suggest a quick read of this article for some examples of trying to make ST work a bit like you are suggesting. Still, I would be cautious before putting anything like this to work in a real factory with real machines that need to be both safe and reliably making money.
In the context of programming language discussion/comparison, what does the term "power" mean?
Does it have a well defined meaning? Even a poorly defined meaning?
Say if someone says "language X is more powerful than language Y" or asks the same as a question, what do they mean - or what information are they trying to find out?
It does not have a well-defined meaning. In these types of discussions, "language X is more powerful than language Y" usually means little more than "I like language X more than language Y." On the other end of the spectrum, you'll also usually have someone chime in about how any Turing-complete language can accomplish the same tasks as any other Turing-complete language, so that neither is strictly more powerful than the other.
I think a good meaning for it is expressivity. When a language is highly expressive, it means less code is required to express concepts. To me, this doesn't just mean that you have to write less code to accomplish the same tasks, but also that the code is easily readable by humans. Of course, generally (to a point), having fewer lines of code to read makes the task of reading and understanding easier for humans.
Having a "powerful" standard library comes into play here along the same lines. If a language comes equipped with thorough, complete libraries, then idiomatic code in that language will be able to benefit from the existing library code and not have to repeat or reinvent common functionality in application code. The end result is, again, having to write and read less code to accomplish the same tasks.
I keep saying "generally" and "to a point", because once a language gets too terse, it gets more difficult for humans to decipher. I suppose at this extreme, a language may still be considered "more powerful" (or even "too powerful"). So I guess I'm saying my personal interpretation of "powerful" includes some aspects of "useful" and "readable" in it as well.
C is powerful, because it is low level and gives you access to hardware. Python is powerful because you can prototype quickly. Lisp is powerful because its REPL gives you fantastic debugging opportunities. SQL is powerful because you say what you want and the DMBS will figure out the best way to do it for you. Haskell is powerful because each function can be tested in isolation. C++ is powerful because it has ten times the number of syntactic constructs that any one person ever needs or uses. APL is powerful since it can squeeze a ten-screen program into ten characters. Hell, COBOL is powerful because... why else would all the banks be using it? :)
"Powerful" has no real technical meaning, but lots of people have made proposals.
A couple of the more interesting ones:
Paul Graham wants to call a language "more powerful" if you can write the same programs in fewer lines of code (or some other sane, sensible measure of program size).
Matthias Felleisen has written a very serious theoretical study called On the Expressive Power of Programming Language.
As someone who knows and uses many programming languages, I believe that there are real differences between languages, and that "power" can be a convenient shorthand to describe ways in which one language might be better than another. Nevertheless, whenever I hear a discussion or claim that one language is more powerful than another, I tend to keep one hand firmly on my wallet.
The only meaningful way to describe "power" in a programming language is "can do what I require with the least amount of resources" where "resources" is defined as "whatever costs I'd rather not pay" and could, thus, be development time, CPU time, memory space, money, etc.
So basically the definition of "power" is purely subjective and rendered meaningless in any objective discussion.
Powerful means "high in power". "Power" is something that increases your ability to do things. "Things" vary in shape, size and other things. Loosely speaking therefore, "powerful" when applied to a programming language means that it helps you to do perform your tasks quickly and efficiently.
This makes "powerful" somewhat well defined but not constant across domains. A language powerful in one domain might be crippling in another eg. C is very powerful if you want to do systems level programming since it gives you direct access to the machine and hardware and structures that let you code much faster than you would in assembly. C compilers also produce tight code that runs fast. However, once you move to web applications, C can become very "unpowerful" and crippling since it's so much effort to get something up and running and you have to worry about a lot of extraneous details like memory etc.
Sometimes, languages are "powerful" in multiple domains. This gives them a general "powerful" tag (or badge since were are on SO here). PG's claim is that with LISP, this is the case. That might be true or might not be.
At the end of the day, "powerful" is a loaded word so you should evaluate who is saying it, why he's saying it and what it means to to your work.
There are really only two meanings people are worried about:
"Powerful" in the sense of "takes less resources (time, money, programmers, LOC, etc.) to achieve the same/better result", and "powerful" in the sense of "is capable of doing a wide range of tasks".
Some languages are extrememly resource-effective for a small range of tasks. Others are not so resource-effective but can be applied to a wide range of tasks (e.g. C, which is often used in OS development, creation of compilers and runtime libraries, and work with microcontrollers).
Which of these two meanings someone has in mind when they use the term "powerful" depends on the context (and even then is not always clear). Indeed often it is a bit of both.
Typically there are two distinct meanings:
Expressive, meaning the code tends to be very short and understandable
Low level, meaning you have very fine-grained control over the hardware.
For the most languages, these two definitions are at opposite ends of the spectrum: Python is very expressive but not very low level; C is very low level but not very expressive. Depending on which definition you pick, either language is powerful or not powerful.
nothing absolutely nothing.
To high level programmers it might mean alot of available datatypes built in. Or maybe abstractions to easily create or follow Design Patterns.
Paul Graham is a very high level guy here is what he has to say:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Java guys might tell you something about portability, the power to reach every platform.
C/UNIX programmers may tell you that its speed and efficiency, complete control over every inch of memory.
VHDL/Verilog programmers will tell you its complete control over every clock and gate so as to not waste any electricity or time.
But in my opinion a "powerful language" supports all of the features for you to complete your task. Documentation may be important, or perhaps it is portability, or the ability to do graphics. It could be anything, writing a gui from Assembly is just stupid, so is trying to design an embedded processor in flash.
Choosing a language that suits your needs perfectly will always feel like power.
I view the term as marketing fluff, no one well-defined meaning.
If you consider, say, Assembler, C, and C++. On occasions one drops from C++ "down" to C for particualr needs, and in turn from C down to assembler. So that make assembler the most powerful because it's the only language that can do everything. Or, to argue the other way, a single line of C++ code can replace several of C (hiding polymorphic dispatch via function pointers for example) and a single line of C replaces many of assembler. So C++ is more powerful because one line does "more".
I think the term had some currency when products such as early databases and spreadsheets had in-built languages, some quite restricted. So vendors would tout their language as being "powerful" because it was less restricted.
It can have several meanings. In the very basic sense there's power as far as what is computable. In that sense the most powerful languages are Turing Complete which includes pretty much every general purpose programming language (as opposed to most markup languages and domain specific languages which are often not Turing complete).
In a more pragmatic sense it often refers to how concisely (and readably) you can do certain things. Basically how easy is it to do certain tasks in one language compared to another.
What language is more powerful (besides being somewhat subjective) depends heavily on what you're trying to do. If your requirements are to get something running on a small device with 64k of memory you're likely not going to be using Java. Most likely the right language would be C or C++ (or if you're really hard core assembly). If you need a very simple CRUD app done in 1 day, maybe something like Ruby On Rails would be the way to go (I know Rails is a framework and Ruby is the language, but these days what libraries and frameworks are available factor greatly into picking a language)
I think that, perhaps coincidentally, the physics definition of power is relevant here: "The rate at which work is performed."
Of course, a toaster does not perform very quickly the work of putting out fires. Similarly, the power of a programming language is not universal, but specific to the domain or task to which it is being applied. C is a powerful language for writing device drivers or implementations of higher-level languages; Python is a powerful language for writing general-purpose applications; XPath is a powerful language for writing queries on structured data sets.
So given a problem domain, the power of a language can be said to be the rate at which a competent programmer is able to use it to solve problems in that domain.
A precise answer can be tried to reach, by not assuming that the elements that define "powerful" (in the context of languages) come from so many dimensions.
See how many could be, and a lot will be missing:
runtime speed
code size
expressiveness
supported paradigms
development / debugging time
domain specialization
standard libs
codebase
toolchain ecosystem
portability
community
support / documentation
popularity
(add more here)
These and more parameters draw together X picture of how "programming in some language" would be like at X level. That will be only the definition, though, the only real knowledge comes with the actual practice of using the language, but i digress.
The question comes down to which parameter will represent the intrinsic quality of a language. If you refer to a language in itself, its ultimate, intrinsic purpose is "express things", and thus the most representative parameter is rightfully expressiveness, and is also one that resonates frequently when someone talks about how powerful a language is.
At the moment you try to widen the question/answer to cover more than the expressiveness of the language "as a language, as a tongue", you are more talking about different kinds of "environment", social environment, development environment, commercial environment, etc.
Depending of the complexity of the environment to be defined you'll have to mix more parameters that come from multiple, vast, overlapping and sometimes contradictory dimensions, and eventually the point of getting the definition will be lost or the question will have to be narrowed.
This approximation still won't answer "what is an expressive language", but, again, a common understanding are the definitions that Vineet well points out in its answer, and Forest remarks in the comments. I agree, for me "expression" is "conveying meaning".
I remember many instructors in college calling whatever language they were teaching "powerful".
Leads me to think:
Powerful = a relative term comparing the latest way to code something vs. the original or previous way.
I find it useless to use the word "powerful" in regards to discussing anything software related. Every time my professor in college would introduce a new concept such as polymorphism he would say "so this is a really powerful feature". After a while I got annoyed. If everything is powerful then nothing is. It's all the same. You can write code to do anything. Does is really matter how much code is required to do it? You can say it's short or efficient but powerful is just useless. Nuclear energy is powerful. Code is words.
I think that power would normally refer to how quickly it can process data, for example I found that in python as soon as a list exceeds a length of approx. 2000 it becomes unbearably slow whereas in C++ a list can easily contain 20,000 entries without doing so.
I know in Prolog you can do something like
someFunction(List) :-
someOtherFunction(X, List)
doSomethingWith(X)
% and so on
This will not iterate over every element in List; instead, it will branch off into different "machines" (by using multiple threads, backtracking on a single thread, creating parallel universes or what have you), with a separate execution for every possible value of X that causes someOtherFunction(X, List) to return true!
(I have no idea how it does this, but that's not important to the question)
My question is: What other non-deterministic programming languages are out there? It seems like non-determinism is the simplest and most logical way to implement multi-threading in a language with immutable variables, but I've never seen this done before - Why isn't this technique more popular?
Prolog is actually deterministic—the order of evaluation is prescribed, and order matters.
Why isn't nondeterminism more popular?
Nondeterminism is unpopular because it makes it harder to reason about the outcomes of your programs, and truly nondeterministic executions (as opposed to semantics) are hard to implement.
The only nondeterministic languages I'm aware of are
Dijkstra's calculus of guarded commands, which he wanted never to be implemented
Concurrent ML, in which communications may be synchronized nondeterministically
Gerard Holzmann's Promela language, which is the language of the model checker SPIN
SPIN does actually use the nondeterminism and explores the entire state space when it can.
And of course any multithreaded language behaves nondeterministically if the threads are not synchronized, but that's exactly the sort of thing that's difficult to reason about—and why it's so hard to implement efficient, correct lock-free data structures.
Incidentally, if you are looking to achieve parallelism, you can achieve the same thing by a simple map function in a pure functional language like Haskell. There's a reason Google MapReduce is based on functional languages.
The Wikipedia article points to Amb which is a Scheme-derivative with capacities for non-deterministic programming.
As far as I understand, the main reason why programming languages do not do that is because running a non-deterministic program on a deterministic machine (as are all existing computers) is inherently expensive. Basically, a non-deterministic Turing machine can solve complex problems in polynomial time, for which no polynomial algorithm for a deterministic Turing machine is known. In other words, non-deterministic programming fails to capture the essence of algorithmics in the context of existing computers.
The same problem impacts Prolog. Any efficient, or at least not-awfully-inefficient Prolog application must use the "cut" operator to avoid exploring an exponential number of paths. That operator works only as long as the programmer has a good mental view of how the Prolog interpreter will explore the possible paths, in a deterministic and very procedural way. Things which are very procedural do not mix well with functional programming, since the latter is mostly an effort of not thinking procedurally at all.
As a side note, in between deterministic and non-deterministic Turing machines, there is the "quantum computing" model. A quantum computer, assuming that one exists, does not do everything that a non-deterministic Turing machine can do, but it can do more than a deterministic Turing machine. There are people who are currently designing programming languages for the quantum computer (assuming that a quantum computer will ultimately be built). Some of those new languages are functional. You may find a host of useful links on this Wikipedia page. Apparently, designing a quantum programming language, functional or not, and using it, is not easy and certainly not "simple".
One example of a non-deterministic language is Occam, based on CSP theory. The combination of the PAR and ALT constructs can give rise to non-deterministic behaviour in multiprocessor systems, implementing fine grain parallel programs.
When using soft channels, i.e. channels between processes on the same processor, the implementation of ALT will make the behaviour close to deterministic†, but as soon as you start using hard channels (physical off-processor communication links) any illusion of determinism vanishes. Different remote processors are not expected to be synchronised in any way and they may not even have the same core or clock speed.
†The ALT construct is often implemented with a PRI ALT, so you have to explicitly code in fairness if you need it to be fair.
Non-determinism is seen as a disadvantage when it comes to reasoning about and proving programs correct, but in many ways once you've accepted it, you are freed from many of the constraints that determinism forces on your reasoning.
As long as the sequencing of communication doesn't lead to deadlock, which can be done by applying CSP techniques, then the precise order in which things are done should matter much less than whether you get the results that you want in time.
It was arguably this lack of determinism which was a major factor in preventing the adoption of Occam and Transputer systems in military projects, dominated by Ada at the time, where knowing precisely what a CPU was doing at every clock cycle was considered essential to proving a system correct. Without this constraint, Occam and the Transputer systems it ran on (the only CPUs at the time with a formally proven IEEE floating point implementation) would have been a perfect fit for hard real-time military systems needing high levels of processing functionality in a small space.
In Prolog you can have both non-determinism and concurrency. Non-determinism is what you described in your question concerning the example code. You can imagine that a Prolog clause is full of implicit amb statements. It is less known that concurrency is also supported by logic-programming.
History says:
The first concurrent logic programming language was the Relational
Language of Clark and Gregory, which was an offshoot of IC-Prolog.
Later versions of concurrent logic programming include Shapiro's
Concurrent Prolog and Ueda's Guarded Horn Clause language GHC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrent_logic_programming
But today we might just go with treads inside logic programming. Here is an example to implement a findall via threads. This can also be modded to perform all kinds of tasks on the collection, or maybe even produce agent networks towards distributed artificial intelligence.
I believe Haskell has the capability to construct and non-deterministic machine. Haskell at first may seem too difficult and abstract for practical use, but it's actually very powerful.
There is a programming language for non-deterministic problems which is called as "control network programming". If you want more information go to http://controlnetworkprogramming.com. This site is still in progress but you can read some info about it.
Java 2K
Note: Before you click the link and being disappointed: This is an esoteric language and has nothing to do with parallelism.
The Sly programming language under development at IBM Research is an attempt to include the non-determinism inherent in multi-threaded execution in the execution of certain types of algorithms. Looks to be very much a work in progress though.