I find more and more aspects where Smalltalk was the innovator, i.e. created the technique or at least the overall concept for the first time. I can think of the following:
xunit approach
IDE concepts
VM optimizations
fluent interfaces
several design patterns (e.g. model-view-controller)
the class-free prototype paradigm.
Are all of these correct? Which further innovations did Smalltalk bring?
I'm sure there are more (e.g. in the field of language design?)
The mouse
Unit Testing
Refactoring
Scavenging GC
image concept (snapshot)
It is the first language that was a clear improvement on a large majority of its successors (with the possible exceptions of self and newspeak). If you want to see the future of java and c#, look no further than smalltalk.
Also, Dan Ingalls is usually given credit for inventing BitBLT as part of Smalltalk 72.
I would also add "IDE" to the list, but I have no citation to back that up.
You forgot one BIG thing: object-oriented programming
I read somewhere that smalltalk implemented the first window based GUI. Hard to beat that ;)
Domain-Driven Design: Trygve Renskaug's papers on the MVC pattern discuss heavily the importance of representing the domain of the system in the object model and separating it from the conceptual view.
I am a senior undergrad majoring in CS. At the moment I am taking a Computer Architecture class. We need to do a project. I want to do something related to CUDA, where the performance of the computation will have a moderate increase compred to a serial implementation.
I am really interested in databases so I decided to do something related to SQL. I only have experience with MySQL and I could not find anything related to how to work with MySQL using CUDA. There is only one reseasrch I could find about SQL and it uses SQLite. I am not sure what to do and how to gather information on this subject so I decided to take your opinions.
Best
Just in case someone end-up in this page, the PGStorm is a module of foreign data wrapper of PostgreSQL database.
You might want to look at implementation of SQL language which runs on GPU and uses CUDA.
it is open source so you can look at algorithms for joins, sorts and groupings.
Link :
http://sourceforge.net/projects/alenka/
Really? Google found this from NVIDIA:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=100342
They have a guide. Is that not suitable? It's certainly not for the faint of heart.
http://developer.download.nvidia.com/compute/cuda/1_1/NVIDIA_CUDA_Programming_Guide_1.1.pdf
On the contrary to everyone else, while I'm not sure how, a GPU can work with MySQL... I dont know why every says it couldnt. If there is CPU workload in MySQL then whatever that CPU is doing, at some level, if someone took the time to implement it, a GPU could, for example, work on UPDATING separate rows on separate threads. Could either alloc each table to each block, or just freeform it and let the end user decide.
Or at least someone could edit the driver to speed up efficiency of communication.
It looks like that now there's a solution for querying data using SQL on gpus in python :
https://developer.nvidia.com/blog/beginners-guide-to-querying-data-using-sql-on-gpus-in-python/
I wonder if they are some other possibilities using different programming langages though.
Basically is the only advantage of object oriented languages the improved understanding of a programs purpose?
Do the compilers of object oriented languages break apart the objects into structures and function libraries?
Basically, yes. The only advantage is improved understanding of code.
For some languages the OO version is the same as the non-OO version after compilation. Perl for example. For the majority of cases the OO version is much slower than the non-OO version. With very rare exceptions, non-OO languages are always faster than OO languages.
But in general, most experienced programmers will tell you not to worry about the performance differences between OO and non-OO languages (or Lispers will tell you not to worry about the performance difference between procedural and functional languages). This is because you should never, ever, ever, underestimate the importance of understanding code.
These days we rarely talk about it anymore because we've gotten used to using very high level languages - be it OO or functional or multi-paradigm or metaprogramming. But back in the 80s and 90s there was what was then known as the software crisis. What was the software crisis? It's basically the fact that most software projects were never completed!
The software crisis affected all sectors of the industry: from military radar systems, to games to commercial operating systems. The consumers called them vaporware. They were projects that were too ambitious.
But these days there are lots of very ambitious and impressive projects that manage to reach at least beta versions (and for web2.0 beta is good enough for public consumption). Part of the reason is that we now understand requirements engineering better and we also understand the process of software development better. But part of it is also because we have better tools to actually understand what we're doing. And OO is part of that toolset.
Yes, method code is central to the class definition and each instance method accepts an implicit this pointer to the data as its first argument. If you disassemble an instance method call you will see this.
Here are a couple of links to compare speed, first is comparing C/C++, please read the entire article:
http://unthought.net/c++/c_vs_c++.html
To compare Python, Java, C++, PHP and other languages:
http://blog.dhananjaynene.com/2008/07/performance-comparison-c-java-python-ruby-jython-jruby-groovy/
But, to answer your question, the main advantage of OO is that for many problems it is the best way to model the solution, as the model naturally fits into objects. But, if you try to force it to work where it is not a good fit you will have harder to understand code.
There are various language paradigms as there are many different types of problems, and you should pick the language type that best models the solution. For example, I would not want to write an OS in C++ as it doesn't seem to fit well in OO methodologies, but I would also not want to write a car racing game in C, as it would make more sense to have objects.
Depending on the language and compiler, you may see the compiled application compile to C, but others are not, as some are going to be interpreted.
For example, C++ compiles to C, but Java does not, neither does .NET languages. PHP is generally interpreted, though it is possible to compile it (though I have never tried it). One compiler is:
http://www.phpcompiler.org/
People like Alexander Stepanov and Sean Parent vote for a formal and abstract approach on software design.
The idea is to break complex systems down into a directed acyclic graph and hide cyclic behaviour in nodes representing that behaviour.
Parent gave presentations at boost-con and google (sheets from boost-con, p.24 introduces the approach, there is also a video of the google talk).
While i like the approach and think its a neccessary development, i have a problem with imagining how to handle subsystems with amorphous behaviour.
Imagine for example a common pattern for state-machines: using an interface which all states support and having different behaviour in concrete implementations for the states.
How would one solve that?
Note that i am just looking for an abstract approach.
I can think of hiding that behaviour behind a node and defining different sub-DAGs for the states, but that complicates the design considerately if you want to influence the behaviour of the main DAG from a sub-DAG.
Your question is not clear. Define amorphous subsystems.
You are "just looking for an abstract approach" but then you seem to want details about an implementation in a conventional programming language ("common pattern for state-machines"). So, what are you asking for? How to implement nested finite state-machines?
Some more detail will help the conversation.
For a real abstract approach, look at something like Stream X-Machines:
... The X-machine model is structurally the
same as the finite state machine, except
that the symbols used to label the machine's
transitions denote relations of type X→X. ...
The Stream X-Machine differs from Eilenberg's
model, in that the fundamental data type
X = Out* × Mem × In*,
where In* is an input sequence,
Out* is an output sequence, and Mem is the
(rest of the) memory.
The advantage of this model is that it
allows a system to be driven, one step
at a time, through its states and
transitions, while observing the
outputs at each step. These are
witness values, that guarantee that
particular functions were executed on
each step. As a result, complex
software systems may be decomposed
into a hierarchy of Stream
X-Machines, designed in a top-down
way and tested in a bottom-up way.
This divide-and-conquer approach to
design and testing is backed by
Florentin Ipate's proof of correct
integration, which proves how testing
the layered machines independently is
equivalent to testing the composed
system. ...
But I don't see how the presentation is related to this. He seems to speak about a quite mainstream approach to programming, nothing similar to X-Machines. Anyway, the presentation is quite confusing and I have no time to see the video right now.
First impression of the talk, reading the slides only
The author touches haphazardly on numerous fields/problems/solutions, apparently without recognizing it: from Peopleware (for example Psychology of programming), to Software Engineering (for example software product lines), to various programming techniques.
How the various parts are linked and what exactly he is advocating is not clear at all (I'm accustomed to just reading slides and they are usually consequential):
Dataflow programming?
Constraints solving for User Interfaces? For practical implementations, see Garnet for Common Lisp, Amulet/OpenAmulet for C++.
What advantages gives us this "new" concept-based generic programming with respect to well-known approaches (for example, tools based on Hoare logic pre/post conditions and invariants or, better, Hoare's Communicating Sequential Processes (CSP) or Hehner's Practical Theory of Programming or some programming language with a sophisticated type-system like ATS, Qi or Epigram and so on)? It seems to me that introducing "concepts" - which, as-is, are specific to C++ - is not more simple than using the alternatives. Is it just about jargon and "politics"? (Finally formal methods... but disguised).
Why organizing program modules as a DAG and not as a tree, like David Parnas advocated decades ago in Designing software for ease of extension and contraction? (here a directly accessible .pdf and here slides from a lecture). The work on X-Machines probably is an answer to this question (going even beyond DAGs), but, again, the author seems to speak about a quite conventional program development regime in which Parnas' approach is the only sensible.
If/when I will see the video I will update this answer.
I have been doing a little reading on Flow Based Programming over the last few days. There is a wiki which provides further detail. And wikipedia has a good overview on it too. My first thought was, "Great another proponent of lego-land pretend programming" - a concept harking back to the late 80's. But, as I read more, I must admit I have become intrigued.
Have you used FBP for a real project?
What is your opinion of FBP?
Does FBP have a future?
In some senses, it seems like the holy grail of reuse that our industry has pursued since the advent of procedural languages.
1. Have you used FBP for a real project?
We've designed and implemented a DF server for our automation project (dispatcher, component iterface, a bunch of components, DF language, DF compiler, UI). It is written in bare C++, and runs on several Unix-like systems (Linux x86, MIPS, avr32 etc., Mac OSX). It lacks several features, e.g. sophisticated flow control, complex thread control (there is only a not too advanced component for it), so it is just a prototype, even it works. We're now working on a full-featured server. We've learnt lot during implementing and using the prototype.
Also, we'll make a visual editor some day.
2. What is your opinion of FBP?
2.1. First of all, dataflow programming is ultimate fun
When I met dataflow programming, I was feel like 20 years ago, when I met programming first. Altough, DF programming differs from procedural/OOP programming, it's just a kind of programming. There are lot of things to discover, even sooo simple ones! It's very funny, when, as an experienced programmer, you met a DF problem, which is a very-very basic thing, but it was completely unknown for you before. So, if you jump into DF programming, you will feel like a rookie programmer, who first met the "cycle" or "condition".
2.2. It can be used only for specific architectures
It's just a hammer, which are for hammering nails. DF is not suitable for UIs, web server and so on.
2.3. Dataflow architecture is optimal for some problems
A dataflow framework can make magic things. It can paralellize procedures, which are not originally designed for paralellization. Components are single-threaded, but when they're organized into a DF graph, they became multi-threaded.
Example: did you know, that make is a DF system? Try make -j (see man, what -j is used for). If you have multi-core machine, compile your project with and without -j, and compare times.
2.4. Optimal split of the problem
If you're writing a program, you often split up the problem for smaller sub-problems. There are usual split points for well-known sub-problems, which you don't need to implement, just use the existing solutions, like SQL for DB, or OpenGL for graphics/animation, etc.
DF architecture splits your problem a very interesting way:
the dataflow framework, which provides the architecture (just use an existing one),
the components: the programmer creates components; the components are simple, well-separated units - it's easy to make components;
the configuration: a.k.a. dataflow programming: the configurator puts the dataflow graph (program) together using components provided by the programmer.
If your component set is well-designed, the configurator can build such system, which the programmer has never even dreamed about. Configurator can implement new features without disturbing the programmer. Customers are happy, because they have personalised solution. Software manufacturer is also happy, because he/she don't need to maintain several customer-specific branches of the software, just customer-specific configurations.
2.5. Speed
If the system is built on native components, the DF program is fast. The only time loss is the message dispatching between components compared to a simple OOP program, it's also minimal.
3. Does FBP have a future?
Yes, sure.
The main reason is that it can solve massive multiprocessing issues without introducing brand new strange software architectures, weird languages. Dataflow programming is easy, and I mean both: component programming and dataflow configuration building. (Even dataflow framework writing is not a rocket science.)
Also, it's very economic. If you have a good set of components, you need only put the lego bricks together. A DF program is easy to maintain. The DF config building requires no experienced programmer, just a system integrator.
I would be happy, if native systems spread, with doors open for custom component creating. Also there should be a standard DF language, which means that it can be used with platform-independent visual editors and several DF servers.
Interesting discussion! It occurred to me yesterday that part of the confusion may be due to the fact that many different notations use directed arcs, but use them to mean different things. In FBP, the lines represent bounded buffers, across which travel streams of data packets. Since the components are typically long-running processes, streams may comprise huge numbers of packets, and FBP applications can run for very long periods - perhaps even "perpetually" (see a 2007 paper on a project called Eon, mostly by folks at UMass Amherst). Since a send to a bounded buffer suspends when the buffer is (temporarily) full (or temporarily empty), indefinite amounts of data can be processed using finite resources.
By comparison, the E in Grafcet comes from Etapes, meaning "steps", which is a rather different concept. In this kind of model (and there are a number of these out there), the data flowing between steps is either limited to what can be held in high-speed memory at one time, or has to be held on disk. FBP also supports loops in the network, which is hard to do in step-based systems - see for example http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?BrokerageApplication - notice that this application used both MQSeries and CORBA in a natural way. Furthermore, FBP is natively parallel, so it lends itself to programming of grid networks, multicore machines, and a number of the directions of modern computing. One last comment: in the literature I have found many related projects, but few of them have all the characteristics of FBP. A list that I have amassed over the years (a number of them closer than Grafcet) can be found in http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?FlowLikeProjects .
I do have to disagree with the comment about FBP being just a means of implementing FSMs: I think FSMs are neat, and I believe they have a definite role in building applications, but the core concept of FBP is of multiple component processes running asynchronously, communicating by means of streams of data chunks which run across what are now called bounded buffers. Yes, definitely FSMs are one way of building component processes, and in fact there is a whole chapter in my book on FBP devoted to this idea, and the related one of PDAs (1) - http://www.jpaulmorrison.com/fbp/compil.htm - but in my opinion an FSM implementing a non-trivial FBP network would be impossibly complex. As an example the diagram shown in
is about 1/3 of a single batch job running on a mainframe. Every one of those blocks is running asynchronously with all the others. By the way, I would be very interested to hearing more answers to the questions in the first post!
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pushdown_automaton Push-down automata
Whenever I hear the term flow based programming I think of LabView, conceptually. Ie component processes who's scheduling is driven primarily by a change to its input data. This really IS lego programming in the sense that the labview platform was used for the latest crop of mindstorm products. However I disagree that this makes it a less useful programming model.
For industrial systems which typically involve data collection, control, and automation, it fits very well. What is any control system if not data in transformed to data out? Ie what component in your control scheme would you not prefer to represent as a black box in a bigger picture, if you could do so. To achieve that level of architectural clarity using other methodologies you might have to draw a data domain class diagram, then a problem domain run time class relationship, then on top of that a use case diagram, and flip back and forth between them. With flow driven systems you have the luxury of being able to collapse a lot of this information together accurately enough that you can realistically design a system visually once the components are build and defined.
One question I never had to ask when looking at an application written in labview is "What piece of code set this value?", as it was inherent and easy to trace backwards from the data, and also mistakes like multiple untintended writers were impossible to create by mistake.
If only that was true of code written in a more typically procedural fashion!
1) I build a small FBP framework for an anomaly detection project, and it turns out to have been a great idea.
You can also have a look at some of the KNIME videos, that give a good idea of what a flow based framework feels like when the framework is put together by a great team. Admittedly, it is batch based and not created for continuous operation.
By far the best example of flow based programming, however, is UNIX pipes which is one of the oldest, most overlooked FBP framework. I don't think I have to elaborate on the power of nix pipes...
2) FBP is a very powerful tool for a large set of problems. The intrinsic parallelism is a great advantage, and any FBP framework can be made completely network transparent by using adapter modules. Smart frameworks are also absurdly fault tolerant, and able to dynamically reload crashed modules when necessary. The conceptual simplicity also allows cleaner communication with everybody involved in a project, and much cleaner code.
3) Absolutely! Pipes are here to stay, and are one of the most powerful feature of unix. The power inherent in a FBP framework compared to a static program are many, and trivialise change, to the point where some frameworks can be reconfigured while running with no special measures.
FBP FTW! ;-)
In automotive development, they have a language agnostic messaging protocol which is part of the MOST specification (Media Oriented Systems Transport), this was designed to communicate between components over a network or within the same device. Systems usually have both a real and visualized message bus - therefore you effectively have a form of flow based programming.
That was what made the light bulb go on for me several years ago and brought me here. It really is a fantastic way to work and so much more fun than conventional programming. The message catalog form the central specification and point of reference. It works well for both developers and management. i.e. Management are able to browse the message catalog instead of looking at source.
With integrated logging also referencing the catalog to produce intelligible analysis things can get really productive. I have real world experience of developing commercial products in this way. I am interested in taking things further, particularly with regards to tools and IDEs. Unfortunately I think many people within the automotive sector have missed the point about how great this is and have failed to build on it. They are now distracted by other fads and failed to realize that there was far more to most development than the physical bus.
I've used Spring Web Flow extensively in Java Web applications to model (typically) application processes, which tend to be complex wizard-like affairs with lots of conditional logic as to which pages to display. Its incredibly powerful. A new product was added and I managed to recut the existing pieces into a completely new application process in an hour or two (with adding a couple of new views/states).
I also looked into using OS Workflow to model business processes but that project got canned for various reasons.
In the Microsoft world you have Windows Workflow Foundation ("WWF"), which is becoming more popular, particularly in conjunction with Sharepoint.
FBP is just a means of implementing a finite state machine. It's nothing new.
I realize that it is not exactly the same thing, but this model has been used for years in PLC programming. ISO calls it Sequential Flow Chart, but many people call it Grafcet after a popular implementation. It offers parallel processing and defines transitions between states.
It's being used in the Business Intelligence world these days to mashup and process data. Data processing steps like ETL, querying, joining , and producing reports can be done by the end-user. I'm a developer on an open system - ComposableAnalytics.com In CA, the flow-based apps can be shared and executed via the browser.
This is what MQ Series, MSMQ and JMS are for.
This is cornerstone of Web Services and Enterprise Service Bus implementations.
Products like TIBCO and Sun's JCAPS are basically flow-based without using this particular buzz-word.
Most of the work of the application is done with small modules that pass messages through a processing network.