I browsed around a while on haskell.org, haskell-prime wiki, etc. but did not find any resources like test suites, or some such, that would allow to check a Haskell implementation for standard compliance.
Does anybody know if such resources exist, and point me there?
Otherwise, I wonder what the Haskell Prime Comitee would do if someone claims that he has a Haskell-2010 compliant implementation?
Aside from the written standards for Haskell 2010 and Haskell98, I don't think there is an "official test suite" for compliance. If you are developing a Haskell implementation, perhaps you can adapt the GHC test framework to suit your needs.
Related
As part of a research project on property-based testing, I need to do static whole-program analysis of Haskell programs. I'm looking for suggestions on how to implement whole-program analysis of Haskell programs, hopefully without building lots of infrastructure myself.
I looked at Template Haskell, which has many of the capabilities I need, but is missing a key feature: in Template Haskell as implemented in GHC, there appears to be no way to get the definition of a function by name. (Related SO question: How to get the declaration of a function using `reify`?)
I suspect that there might be some way of doing whole-program analysis of Haskell programs using the GHC API, but I can't easily determine how this might be done from the GHC API documentation.
In particular, given a function call site, I need to be able to look up the corresponding function definition(s). I'm especially interested in Template Haskell or GHC API-based solutions.
Is there any way to do whole-program analysis of Haskell programs without building all the infrastructure myself?
I'm architecturing a Multi Agent System (MAS) framework to describe Beliefs-Desires-Intents (BDI) agents in Haskell (i.e. agents are concurrent, communicating monadic actions).
I searched on the web throughly but I wasn't able to find any reference on similar works, apart from a technical report of an unfinished work, Specifying and Controlling Agents in Haskell.
Do you know about any existing implementation or research paper dealing with BDI agents that can be defined in Haskell or in any other functional language, please?
My aim is to find possible related works, everything that could manage a system of concurrent intelligent agents written in a functional language. I don't need anything specific, I just want to find out whether my work has something in common with existing approaches.
edit: I managed to find a reference to Clojure, a lisp dialect that supports a form of agent programming very close to the actor model, but it's not meant to directly support BDI agents (one should implement another layer on top of it to get the BDI part done I guess).
To sum up, it doesn't seem like there are proposals for BDI-style communicating agents described by means of functional languages, so together with a friend/colleague of mine we collected info about related work, put together some ideas, and we wrote a short position paper that I will present at the DALT2012 workshop. It's a really preliminary work, so do not expect too much from it, but I think in the future it may evolve in something interesting.
Alessandro Solimando, Riccardo Traverso. Designing and Implementing a Framework for BDI-style Communicating Agents in Haskell. DALT 2012, Workshop notes, pages 108--112.
EDIT:
I later found this project on GitHub, which uses free monads (whatever that means, I don't know about them) to provide a framework for multi-agent systems: https://github.com/fizruk/free-agent.
Googled a little bit, but still not sure whether there is some standard library in Haskell dealing with inter-process communication stuff, since I am new to Haskell, I also hope that the library is well documented, better some small example (e.g. passing some data types and use them)....
Many commercial and open source IPCs have Haskell bindings:
0MQ
Thirft
Messagepack
I have made the best experiences with Messagepack because it is quite light weight.
I've created a simple library to solve the most basic aspects of this problem: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/ipcvar
I would like to create a set of domain objects in multiple languages, so that I can target different platforms. I have been looking at external DSLs as a way to define a language for my domain, and then potentially writing adapters that generate code for the languages I'm interested in targeting. Is this the best way to solve this problem? Or is it just simpler to maintain multiple versions of the project?
I think that Apache Thrift delivers what you are asking for.
Sorry for late answer, but as you mention C# being your main language, this practically fully supported Visual Studio based technology is exactly what you are looking for.
You have to understand what you want to abstract with your DSLs, but the multiple-platform support is trivial on top of that.
Disclaimer: This is our technology, but it's publicly open and it solves exactly the problem presented in the question.
http://abstraction.codeplex.com/
Note! Mind the very "alpha" stage of the current download, I suggest you skip the zipped download and grab the latest source. I am updating better construct in relatively near future. Check out the "Context" implementation in "Production/Dev/AbstractionTemplate" solution.
It is difficult to be helpful without understanding what you are planning to use your DSL for.
Is portability your main problem here?
To succesfully target these different platforms, you will probably have to maintain plaftorm-specific layers anyway (generated or not).
If you plan to write your whole application in your DSL, then use your own compiler to transform it into runnable code for each platform, well it is most probably a bad idea, too complex and overengineered.
However, if you have a well-defined chunk of platform-independent logic, then a DSL is a good choice. Just write an interpreter for it on each target platform (provided that performance is not critical, this is also simpler and easier than generating code).
What is the best way to create multiple language versions of a domain?
This is (was?) somehow the idea of Model Driven Architecture (MDA). Quoting Model-driven architecture from Wikipedia:
The Model-Driven Architecture approach
defines system functionality using a
platform-independent model (PIM) using
an appropriate domain-specific
language (DSL).
Then, given a platform definition
model (PDM) corresponding to CORBA,
.NET, the Web, etc., the PIM is
translated to one or more
platform-specific models (PSMs) that
computers can run. This requires
mappings and transformations and
should be modeled too.
The PSM may use different Domain
Specific Languages (DSLs), or a
General Purpose Language (GPL) like
Java, C#, PHP, Python, etc. Automated tools generally
perform this translation.
Depending on the complexity of your domain and the availability of a MDA Tool, this might be an option (with a lower implementation cost).
See also
MDA: Nice idea, shame about the ...
Language Workbenches and Model Driven Architecture
UML vs. Domain-Specific Languages
DSL in the context of UML and GPL
UML or DSL: Which Bear Is Best? (be sure to read this one)
I am struck by the ambition and creativity of Charles Simonyi's efforts to establish the field of Intentional Programming, first at Microsoft and then with his own company.
What exactly is Intentional Programming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intentional_programming
In this approach to software, a
programmer first builds a toolbox
specific to a given problem domain
(such as life insurance). Domain
experts, aided by the programmer, then
describe the program's intended
behavior in a What You See Is What You
Get (WYSIWYG)-like manner. An
automated system uses the program
description and the toolbox to
generate the final program. Successive
changes are only done at the WYSIWYG
level.
It seems to be such a useful and practical approach to programming, potentially circumventing many of the problems with current approaches to software development.
Essentially it seems to facilitate the creation of domain-specific languages by non-programmers (business/systems analysts) but at a stage much closer to real-life implementation than UML could provide. He says it will be completed eventually but that it is not there yet (almost 15 years later).
DSLs run the gamut from simple 5-line rule engines to complex applications like Ruby on Rails. So I imagine the delay in releasing his product has to do with the fact that he is dealing with simplifying a much higher level of abstraction because he has to essentially allow for the encapsulation of all domain languages at once.
So, my question is
(a) whether Antlr could be an alternative to Intentional Programming - although perhaps a less user-friendly alternative which requires the intervention of programmers rather than permitting business analysts to generate the DSL? Could you use Antlr to generate a DSL like Ruby on Rails (assuming it supported Ruby as an output - which I think it does not)? What can it not do? Also, I don't understand why it's called a "language parser" rather than a "language generator" - since the latter describes what it is used for while the former describes how it achieves its end result.
and
(b) if Antlr is different from Intentional Programming, is there anything similar to Intentional Programming?
In answer to part b), three systems that work in a similar space are:
JetBrains MPS
Eclipse xText
MetaCase MetaEdit+
Each of these products has different strengths and weaknesses, but all of them fall into the category of Language Workbenches. Intentional Software's Intentional Workbench is possibly the most ambitious product in this category to date, but is also not generally available.
MPS and xText are free, open-source products. MetaCase is the most mature, and is a commercial product. All of them have a steep learning curve.
I am not an expert on this, so treat with a large pinch of salt. However...
ANTLR itself is not a DSL generator, though it can be used to create code that interprets DSLs. It is a parser generator - but the DSL generator would have to create what ANTLR generates a parser from.
ANTLR is just a parser generator. In any non-trivial DSL, writing the parser is less than 50% of the effort expended in implementing the DSL. The evaluator/rule engine/code generator/schedule or whatever else your DSL does, probably requires more work and can't be generated like a parser.