Transient gradual typing imposes run-time type tests that typically cause a linear slowdown in programs' performance. This performance impact discourages the use of type annotations because adding types to a program makes the program slower. A virtual machine can employ standard just-in-time optimizations to reduce the overhead of transient checks to near zero. These optimizations can give gradually-typed languages performance comparable to state-of-the-art dynamic languages, so programmers can add types to their code without affecting their programs' performance.
Although syntaxes for type annotations in dynamic languages go back at least as far as Lisp, the first attempts at adding a comprehensive static type system to a dynamically typed language involved Smalltalk, with the first practical system being Bracha's Strongtalk. Strongtalk (independently replicated for Ruby) provided a powerful and flexible static type system, where crucially, the system was (also known as pluggable @cite_15 ). Programmers could run the static checker over their Smalltalk code (or not); either way the type annotations had no impact whatsoever of the semantics of the underlying Smalltalk program.
@cite_15
2135536553
Many general-purpose, object-oriented scripting languages are dynamically typed, which provides flexibility but leaves the programmer without the benefits of static typing, including early error detection and the documentation provided by type annotations. This paper describes Diamondback Ruby (DRuby), a tool that blends Ruby's dynamic type system with a static typing discipline. DRuby provides a type language that is rich enough to precisely type Ruby code we have encountered, without unneeded complexity. When possible, DRuby infers static types to discover type errors in Ruby programs. When necessary, the programmer can provide DRuby with annotations that assign static types to dynamic code. These annotations are checked at run time, isolating type errors to unverified code. We applied DRuby to a suite of benchmarks and found several bugs that would cause run-time type errors. DRuby also reported a number of warnings that reveal questionable programming practices in the benchmarks. We believe that DRuby takes a major step toward bringing the benefits of combined static and dynamic typing to Ruby and other object-oriented languages. We present the Ruby Type Checker (rtc), a tool that adds type checking to Ruby, an object-oriented, dynamic scripting language. Rtc is implemented as a Ruby library in which all type checking occurs at run time; thus it checks types later than a purely static system, but earlier than a traditional dynamic type system. Rtc supports type annotations on classes, methods, and objects and rtc provides a rich type language that includes union and intersection types, higherorder (block) types, and parametric polymorphism among other features. Rtc is designed so programmers can control exactly where type checking occurs: type-annotated objects serve as the "roots" of the type checking process, and unannotated objects are not type checked. We have applied rtc to several programs and found it to be easy to use and effective at checking types. The dynamic and reflective features of programming languages are powerful constructs that programmers often mention as extremely useful. However, the ability to modify a program at runtime can be both a boon-in terms of flexibility-, and a curse-in terms of tool support. For instance, usage of these features hampers the design of type systems, the accuracy of static analysis techniques, or the introduction of optimizations by compilers. In this paper, we perform an empirical study of a large Smalltalk codebase- often regarded as the poster-child in terms of availability of these features-, in order to assess how much these features are actually used in practice, whether some are used more than others, and in which kinds of projects. These results are useful to make informed decisions about which features to consider when designing language extensions or tool support. Static and dynamic type systems have well-known strengths and weaknesses. In previous work we developed a gradual type system for a functional calculus named @math . Gradual typing provides the benefits of both static and dynamic checking in a single language by allowing the programmer to control whether a portion of the program is type checked at compile-time or run-time by adding or removing type annotations on variables. Several object-oriented scripting languages are preparing to add static checking. To support that work this paper develops @math , a gradual type system for object-based languages, extending the Ob < : calculus of Abadi and Cardelli. Our primary contribution is to show that gradual typing and subtyping are orthogonal and can be combined in a principled fashion. We also develop a small-step semantics, provide a machine-checked proof of type safety, and improve the space efficiency of higher-order casts.