The maturation of the Web platform has given rise to sophisticated and demanding Web applications such as interactive 3D visualization, audio and video software, and games. With that, efficiency and security of code on the Web has become more important than ever. Yet JavaScript as the only builtin language of the Web is not well-equipped to meet these requirements, especially as a compilation target. Engineers from the four major browser vendors have risen to the challenge and collaboratively designed a portable low-level bytecode called WebAssembly. It offers compact representation, efficient validation and compilation, and safe low to no-overhead execution. Rather than committing to a specific programming model, WebAssembly is an abstraction over modern hardware, making it language-, hardware-, and platform-independent, with use cases beyond just the Web. WebAssembly has been designed with a formal semantics from the start. We describe the motivation, design and formal semantics of WebAssembly and provide some preliminary experience with implementations. CCS Concepts • Software and its engineering → Virtual machines; Assembly languages; Runtime environments; Just-in-time compilers Keywords Virtual machines, programming languages, assembly languages, just-in-time compilers, type systems • Safe, fast, and portable semantics: safe to execute fast to execute language-, hardware-, and platform-independent deterministic and easy to reason about simple interoperability with the Web platform • Safe and efficient representation: compact and easy to decode easy to validate and compile easy to generate for producers streamable and parallelizable Why are these goals important? Why are they hard? Safe Safety for mobile code is paramount on the Web, since code originates from untrusted sources. Protection for mobile code has traditionally been achieved by providing a managed language runtime such as the browser's JavaScript VM or a language plugin. Managed languages enforce memory safety, preventing programs from compromising user data or system state. However, managed language runtimes have traditionally not offered much for portable low-level code, such as memory-unsafe compiled C/C++ applications that do not need garbage collection but are inherently fast.

Mitchell's notion of representation independence is a particularly useful application of Reynolds' relational parametricity -two different implementations of an abstract data type can be shown contextually equivalent so long as there exists a relation between their type representations that is preserved by their operations. There have been a number of methods proposed for proving representation independence in various pure extensions of System F (where data abstraction is achieved through existential typing), as well as in Algol-or Java-like languages (where data abstraction is achieved through the use of local mutable state). However, none of these approaches addresses the interaction of existential type abstraction and local state. In particular, none allows one to prove representation independence results for generative ADTs -i.e., ADTs that both maintain some local state and define abstract types whose internal representations are dependent on that local state.In this paper, we present a syntactic, logical-relations-based method for proving representation independence of generative ADTs in a language supporting polymorphic types, existential types, general recursive types, and unrestricted ML-style mutable references. We demonstrate the effectiveness of our method by using it to prove several interesting contextual equivalences that involve a close interaction between existential typing and local state, as well as some well-known equivalences from the literature (such as Pitts and Stark's "awkward" example) that have caused trouble for previous logical-relations-based methods.The success of our method relies on two key technical innovations. First, in order to handle generative ADTs, we develop a possible-worlds model in which relational interpretations of types are allowed to grow over time in a manner that is tightly coupled with changes to some local state. Second, we employ a step-indexed stratification of possible worlds, which facilitates a simplified account of mutable references of higher type.

ML modules are a powerful language mechanism for decomposing programs into reusable components. Unfortunately, they also have a reputation for being "complex" and requiring fancy type theory that is mostly opaque to non-experts. While this reputation is certainly understandable, given the many non-standard methodologies that have been developed in the process of studying modules, we aim here to demonstrate that it is undeserved. To do so, we present a novel formalization of ML modules, which defines their semantics directly by a compositional "elaboration" translation into plain System F ω (the higher-order polymorphic λ-calculus). To demonstrate the scalability of our "F-ing" semantics, we use it to define a representative, higher-order ML-style module language, encompassing all the major features of existing ML module dialects (except for recursive modules). We thereby show that ML modules are merely a particular mode of use of System F ω .To streamline the exposition, we present the semantics of our module language in stages. We begin by defining a subset of the language supporting a Standard ML-like language with second-class modules and generative functors. We then extend this sublanguage with the ability to package modules as first-class values (a very simple extension, as it turns out) and OCaml-style applicative functors (somewhat harder). Unlike previous work combining both generative and applicative functors, we do not require two distinct forms of functor or signature sealing. Instead, whether a functor is applicative or not depends only on the computational purity of its body. In fact, we argue that applicative/generative is rather incidental terminology for pure versus impure functors. This approach results in a semantics that we feel is simpler and more natural than previous accounts, and moreover prohibits breaches of abstraction safety that were possible under them.

The method of logical relations is a classic technique for proving the equivalence of higher-order programs that implement the same observable behavior but employ different internal data representations. Although it was originally studied for pure, strongly normalizing languages like System F, it has been extended over the past two decades to reason about increasingly realistic languages. In particular, Appel and McAllester's idea of step-indexing has been used recently to develop syntactic Kripke logical relations for MLlike languages that mix functional and imperative forms of data abstraction. However, while step-indexed models are powerful tools, reasoning with them directly is quite painful, as one is forced to engage in tedious step-index arithmetic to derive even simple results.In this paper, we propose a logic LADR for equational reasoning about higher-order programs in the presence of existential type abstraction, general recursive types, and higher-order mutable state. LADR exhibits a novel synthesis of features from Plotkin-Abadi logic, Gödel-Löb logic, S4 modal logic, and relational separation logic. Our model of LADR is based on Ahmed, Dreyer, and Rossberg's state-of-the-art step-indexed Kripke logical relation, which was designed to facilitate proofs of representation independence for "state-dependent" ADTs. LADR enables one to express such proofs at a much higher level, without counting steps or reasoning about the subtle, step-stratified construction of possible worlds.

Type abstraction and intensional type analysis are features seemingly at odds-type abstraction is intended to guarantee parametricity and representation independence, while type analysis is inherently non-parametric. Recently, however, several researchers have proposed and implemented "dynamic type generation" as a way to reconcile these features. The idea is that, when one defines an abstract type, one should also be able to generate at run time a fresh type name, which may be used as a dynamic representative of the abstract type for purposes of type analysis. The question remains: in a language with non-parametric polymorphism, does dynamic type generation provide us with the same kinds of abstraction guarantees that we get from parametric polymorphism?Our goal is to provide a rigorous answer to this question. We define a step-indexed Kripke logical relation for a language with both non-parametric polymorphism (in the form of type-safe cast) and dynamic type generation. Our logical relation enables us to establish parametricity and representation independence results, even in a non-parametric setting, by attaching arbitrary relational interpretations to dynamically-generated type names. In addition, we explore how programs that are provably equivalent in a more traditional parametric logical relation may be "wrapped" systematically to produce terms that are related by our non-parametric relation, and vice versa. This leads us to develop a "polarized" variant of our logical relation, which enables us to distinguish formally between positive and negative notions of parametricity.