Typed Lua

Maidl, André Murbach; Mascarenhas, Fabio; Ierusalimschy, Roberto

doi:10.1145/2617548.2617553

Cited by 14 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Type Systems for Other Dynamic Languages. Many researchers have proposed type systems for dynamic languages, including Python [3], JavaScript [2,21,36], Racket [32,37,38], and Lua [22], or developed new dynamic languages or dialects with special type systems, such as Thorn [5], TypeScript [4,25], and Dart [7]. To our knowledge, these type systems are focused on checking the core language and can have difficulty in the face of metaprogramming.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Ren

Foster

2016

Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic languages such as Ruby, Python, and JavaScript have many compelling benefits, but the lack of static types means subtle errors can remain latent in code for a long time. While many researchers have developed various systems to bring some of the benefits of static types to dynamic languages , prior approaches have trouble dealing with metapro-gramming, which generates code as the program executes. In this paper, we propose Hummingbird, a new system that uses a novel technique, just-in-time static type checking, to type check Ruby code even in the presence of metaprogramming. In Hummingbird, method type signatures are gathered dynamically at run-time, as those methods are created. When a method is called, Hummingbird statically type checks the method body against current type signatures. Thus, Hum-mingbird provides thorough static checks on a per-method basis, while also allowing arbitrarily complex metaprogram-ming. For performance, Hummingbird memoizes the static type checking pass, invalidating cached checks only if necessary. We formalize Hummingbird using a core, Ruby-like language and prove it sound. To evaluate Hummingbird, we applied it to six apps, including three that use Ruby on Rails, a powerful framework that relies heavily on metaprogram-ming. We found that all apps typecheck successfully using Hummingbird, and that Hummingbird's performance overhead is reasonable. We applied Hummingbird to earlier versions of one Rails app and found several type errors that had been introduced and then fixed. Lastly, we demonstrate using Hummingbird in Rails development mode to typecheck an app as live updates are applied to it.

show abstract

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Ren

Foster

2016

Proceedings of the 37th ACM SIGPLAN Conference on Programming Language Design and Implementation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many researchers have proposed type systems for dynamic languages, including Python [3], JavaScript [2,21,36], Racket [32,37,38], and Lua [22], or developed new dynamic languages or dialects with special type systems, such as Thorn [5], TypeScript [4,25], and Dart [7]. To our knowledge, these type systems are focused on checking the core language and can have difficulty in the face of metaprogramming.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Ren

Foster

2016

SIGPLAN Not.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dynamic languages such as Ruby, Python, and JavaScript have many compelling benefits, but the lack of static types means subtle errors can remain latent in code for a long time. While many researchers have developed various systems to bring some of the benefits of static types to dynamic languages, prior approaches have trouble dealing with metaprogramming, which generates code as the program executes. In this paper, we propose Hummingbird, a new system that uses a novel technique, just-in-time static type checking, to type check Ruby code even in the presence of metaprogramming. In Hummingbird, method type signatures are gathered dynamically at run-time, as those methods are created. When a method is called, Hummingbird statically type checks the method body against current type signatures. Thus, Hummingbird provides thorough static checks on a per-method basis, while also allowing arbitrarily complex metaprogramming. For performance, Hummingbird memoizes the static type checking pass, invalidating cached checks only if necessary. We formalize Hummingbird using a core, Ruby-like language and prove it sound. To evaluate Hummingbird, we applied it to six apps, including three that use Ruby on Rails, a powerful framework that relies heavily on metaprogramming. We found that all apps typecheck successfully using Hummingbird, and that Hummingbird's performance overhead is reasonable. We applied Hummingbird to earlier versions of one Rails app and found several type errors that had been introduced and then fixed. Lastly, we demonstrate using Hummingbird in Rails development mode to typecheck an app as live updates are applied to it.

show abstract

Practical Optional Types for Clojure

Bonnaire-Sergeant

Davies

Tobin-Hochstadt

2016

Programming Languages and Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typed Clojure is an optional type system for Clojure, a dynamic language in the Lisp family that targets the JVM. Typed Clojure enables Clojure programmers to gain greater confidence in the correctness of their code via static type checking while remaining in the Clojure world, and has acquired significant adoption in the Clojure community. Typed Clojure repurposes Typed Racket's occurrence typing, an approach to statically reasoning about predicate tests, and also includes several new type system features to handle existing Clojure idioms. In this paper, we describe Typed Clojure and present these type system extensions, focusing on three features widely used in Clojure. First, multimethods provide extensible operations, and their Clojure semantics turns out to have a surprising synergy with the underlying occurrence typing framework. Second, Java interoperability is central to Clojure's mission but introduces challenges such as ubiquitous null; Typed Clojure handles Java interoperability while ensuring the absence of nullpointer exceptions in typed programs. Third, Clojure programmers idiomatically use immutable dictionaries for data structures; Typed Clojure handles this with multiple forms of heterogeneous dictionary types. We provide a formal model of the Typed Clojure type system incorporating these and other features, with a proof of soundness. Additionally, Typed Clojure is now in use by numerous corporations and developers working with Clojure, and we present a quantitative analysis on the use of type system features in two substantial code bases.

show abstract

Typed Lua

Cited by 14 publications

References 25 publications

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Just-in-time static type checking for dynamic languages

Practical Optional Types for Clojure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About