Topic
Reflection (computer programming)
About: Reflection (computer programming) is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 739 publications have been published within this topic receiving 13177 citations.
Papers published on a yearly basis
1 / 2
Papers
TL;DR: This work extends Featherweight Java with generic classes in the style of GJ and gives a detailed proof of type safety, which formalizes for the first time some of the key features ofGJ.
Abstract: Several recent studies have introduced lightweight versions of Java: reduced languages in which complex features like threads and reflection are dropped to enable rigorous arguments about key properties such as type safety. We carry this process a step further, omitting almost all features of the full language (including interfaces and even assignment) to obtain a small calculus, Featherweight Java, for which rigorous proofs are not only possible but easy. Featherweight Java bears a similar relation to Java as the lambda-calculus does to languages such as ML and Haskell. It offers a similar computational "feel," providing classes, methods, fields, inheritance, and dynamic typecasts with a semantics closely following Java's. A proof of type safety for Featherweight Java thus illustrates many of the interesting features of a safety proof for the full language, while remaining pleasingly compact. The minimal syntax, typing rules, and operational semantics of Featherweight Java make it a handy tool for studying the consequences of extensions and variations. As an illustration of its utility in this regard, we extend Featherweight Java with generic classes in the style of GJ (Bracha, Odersky, Stoutamire, and Wadler) and give a detailed proof of type safety. The extended system formalizes for the first time some of the key features of GJ.
1,303 citations
TL;DR: A comparison to well-known verification techniques like model checking and testing is provided, and applications in which runtime verification brings out its distinguishing features are pointed out.
917 citations
1 Oct 1999
TL;DR: A proof of type safety for Featherweight Java illustrates many of the interesting features of a safety proof for the full language, while remaining pleasingly compact.
Abstract: Several recent studies have introduced lightweight versions of Java: reduced languages in which complex features like threads and reflection are dropped to enable rigorous arguments about key properties such as type safety. We carry this process a step further, omitting almost all features of the full language (including interfaces and even assignment) to obtain a small calculus, Featherweight Java, for which rigorous proofs are not only possible but easy.Featherweight Java bears a similar relation to full Java as the lambda-calculus does to languages such as ML and Haskell. It offers a similar computational “feel,” providing classes, methods, fields, inheritance, and dynamic typecasts, with a semantics closely following Java's. A proof of type safety for Featherweight Java thus illustrates many of the interesting features of a safety proof for the full language, while remaining pleasingly compact. The syntax, type rules, and operational semantics of Featherweight Java fit on one page, making it easier to understand the consequences of extensions and variations.As an illustration of its utility in this regard, we extend Featherweight Java with generic classes in the style of GJ (Bracha, Odersky, Stoutamire, and Wadler) and sketch a proof of type safety. The extended system formalizes for the first time some of the key features of GJ.
495 citations
TL;DR: The author comparatively analyzes 80 implementations of the phone-code program in seven different languages, investigating several aspects of each language, including program length, programming effort, runtime efficiency, memory consumption, and reliability.
Abstract: Often heated, debates regarding different programming languages' effectiveness remain inconclusive because of scarce data and a lack of direct comparisons. The author addresses that challenge, comparatively analyzing 80 implementations of the phone-code program in seven different languages (C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Rexx and Tcl). Further, for each language, the author analyzes several separate implementations by different programmers. The comparison investigates several aspects of each language, including program length, programming effort, runtime efficiency, memory consumption, and reliability. The author uses comparisons to present insight into program language performance.
431 citations
Journal Article•
TL;DR: This paper presents an extension to the reflection API of Java that enables structural reflection in Java, and presents the design principles of Javassist, which distinguish Javassists from related work.
Abstract: The standard reflection API of Java provides the ability to introspect a program but not to alter program behavior. This paper presents an extension to the reflection API for addressing this limitation. Unlike other extensions enabling behavioral reflection, our extension called Javassist enables structural reflection in Java. For using a standard Java virtual machine (JVM) and avoiding a performance problem, Javassist allows structural reflection only before a class is loaded into the JVM. However, Javassist still covers various applications including a language extension emulating behavioral reflection. This paper also presents the design principles of Javassist, which distinguish Javassist from related work.
379 citations
Related Topics (5)
Performance Metrics
| Year | Papers |
|---|---|
| 2026 | 25 |
| 2025 | 3,075 |
| 2024 | 3,952 |
| 2023 | 4,495 |
| 2022 | 7,594 |
| 2021 | 431 |