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.
TL;DR: The talk provides an overview and demonstration of an Extended Static Checker for the Java programming language, a program checker that finds errors statically but has a much more accurate semantic model than existing static checkers like type checkers and data flow analysers.
Abstract: The talk provides an overview and demonstration of an Extended Static Checker for the Java programming language, a program checker that finds errors statically but has a much more accurate semantic model than existing static checkers like type checkers and data flow analysers. For example, ESC/Java uses an automatic theorem-prover and reasons about the semantics of assignments and tests in the same way that a program verifier does. But the checker is fully automatic, and feels to the programmer more like a type checker than like a program verifier. A more detailed account of ESC/Java is contained in a recent PLDI paper [1]. The checker described in the talk and in the PLDI paper is a research prototype on which work ceased several years ago, but Joe Kiniry and David Cok have recently produced a more up-to-date checker, ESC/Java 2 [2].
TL;DR: Chisel, a new hardware construction language that supports advanced hardware design using highly parameterized generators and layered domain-specific hardware languages, is introduced by embedding Chisel in the Scala programming language, raising the level of hardware design abstraction.
Abstract: In this paper we introduce Chisel, a new hardware construction language that supports advanced hardware design using highly parameterized generators and layered domain-specific hardware languages. By embedding Chisel in the Scala programming language, we raise the level of hardware design abstraction by providing concepts including object orientation, functional programming, parameterized types, and type inference. Chisel can generate a high-speed C++-based cycle-accurate software simulator, or low-level Verilog designed to map to either FPGAs or to a standard ASIC flow for synthesis. This paper presents Chisel, its embedding in Scala, hardware examples, and results for C++ simulation, Verilog emulation and ASIC synthesis.
TL;DR: The Java 5.0 memory model as discussed by the authors provides a simple interface for correctly synchronized programs and guarantees sequential consistency to data-race-free programs by requiring that the behavior of incorrectly synchronized programs be bounded by a well defined notion of causality.
Abstract: This paper describes the new Java memory model, which has been revised as part of Java 5.0. The model specifies the legal behaviors for a multithreaded program; it defines the semantics of multithreaded Java programs and partially determines legal implementations of Java virtual machines and compilers.The new Java model provides a simple interface for correctly synchronized programs -- it guarantees sequential consistency to data-race-free programs. Its novel contribution is requiring that the behavior of incorrectly synchronized programs be bounded by a well defined notion of causality. The causality requirement is strong enough to respect the safety and security properties of Java and weak enough to allow standard compiler and hardware optimizations. To our knowledge, other models are either too weak because they do not provide for sufficient safety/security, or are too strong because they rely on a strong notion of data and control dependences that precludes some standard compiler transformations.Although the majority of what is currently done in compilers is legal, the new model introduces significant differences, and clearly defines the boundaries of legal transformations. For example, the commonly accepted definition for control dependence is incorrect for Java, and transformations based on it may be invalid.In addition to providing the official memory model for Java, we believe the model described here could prove to be a useful basis for other programming languages that currently lack well-defined models, such as C++ and C#.
TL;DR: The design, implementation, and performance of a Java framework for supporting a style of parallel programming in which problems are solved by (recursively) splitting them into subtasks that are solved in parallel, waiting for them to complete, and then composing results is described.
Abstract: This paper describes the design, implementation, and performance of a Java framework for supporting a style of parallel programming in which problems are solved by (recursively) splitting them into subtasks that are solved in parallel, waiting for them to complete, and then composing results. The general design is a variant of the work-stealing framework devised for Cilk. The main implementation techniques surround efficient construction and management of tasks queues and worker threads. The measured performance shows good parallel speedups for most programs, but also suggests possible improvements.