2014-11-29 15:52:08 +00:00
|
|
|
**Mu: making programs easier to understand in the large**
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Imagine a world where you can:
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
1. think of a tiny improvement to a program you use, clone its sources,
|
|
|
|
orient yourself on its organization and make your tiny improvement, all in a
|
|
|
|
single afternoon.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
2. Record your program as it runs, and easily convert arbitrary logs of runs
|
|
|
|
into reproducible automatic tests.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
3. Answer arbitrary what-if questions about a codebase by trying out changes
|
|
|
|
and seeing what tests fail, confident that *every* scenario previous authors
|
|
|
|
have considered has been encoded as a test.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-30 00:22:11 +00:00
|
|
|
4. Run first simple and successively more complex versions to stage your
|
|
|
|
learning.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think all these abilities might be strongly correlated; not only are they
|
|
|
|
achievable with a few common concepts, but you can't easily attack one of them
|
2014-11-25 09:28:17 +00:00
|
|
|
without also chasing after the others. The core mechanism enabling them all is
|
|
|
|
recording manual tests right after the first time you perform them:
|
2014-11-23 18:03:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
* keyboard input
|
|
|
|
* printing to screen
|
2014-12-13 02:02:30 +00:00
|
|
|
* website layout
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
* disk filling up
|
|
|
|
* performance metrics
|
|
|
|
* race conditions
|
|
|
|
* fault tolerance
|
|
|
|
* ...
|
2014-11-23 18:03:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
I hope to attain this world by creating a comprehensive library of fakes and
|
|
|
|
hooks for the entire software stack, at all layers of abstraction (programming
|
|
|
|
language, OS, standard libraries, application libraries).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To reduce my workload and get to a proof-of-concept quickly, this is a very
|
|
|
|
*alien* software stack. I've stolen ideas from lots of previous systems, but
|
|
|
|
it's not like anything you're used to. The 'OS' will lack virtual memory, user
|
|
|
|
accounts, any unprivileged mode, address space isolation, and many other
|
|
|
|
features.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-11-11 06:19:42 +00:00
|
|
|
To avoid building a compiler I'm going to do all my programming in (extremely
|
|
|
|
type-safe) assembly (for an idealized virtual machine that nonetheless will
|
|
|
|
translate easily to x86). To keep assembly from getting too painful I'm going
|
|
|
|
to pervasively use one trick: load-time directives to let me order code
|
|
|
|
however I want, and to write boilerplate once and insert it in multiple
|
|
|
|
places. If you're familiar with literate programming or aspect-oriented
|
|
|
|
programming, these directives may seem vaguely familiar. If you're not, think
|
|
|
|
of them as a richer interface for function inlining.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Trading off notational convenience for tests may seem regressive, but I
|
|
|
|
suspect high-level languages aren't particularly helpful in understanding
|
|
|
|
large codebases. No matter how good a notation is, it can only let you see a
|
|
|
|
tiny fraction of a large program at a time. Logs, on the other hand, can let
|
|
|
|
you zoom out and take in an entire *run* at a glance, making them a superior
|
|
|
|
unit of comprehension. If I'm right, it makes sense to prioritize the right
|
|
|
|
*tactile* interface for working with and getting feedback on large programs
|
|
|
|
before we invest in the *visual* tools for making them concise.
|
2014-11-23 18:03:45 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-03-09 23:00:05 +00:00
|
|
|
([More details.](http://akkartik.name/about))
|
|
|
|
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
**Taking Mu for a spin**
|
2014-11-01 23:15:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-06-10 17:22:02 +00:00
|
|
|
Mu is currently implemented in C++ and requires a unix-like environment. It's
|
2015-09-02 19:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
been tested on ubuntu 14.04 on x86, x86\_64 and ARMv7 with recent versions of
|
|
|
|
gcc and clang. Since it uses no recent language features and has no exotic
|
|
|
|
dependencies, it should work with most reasonable versions, compilers or
|
|
|
|
processors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Running Mu will always recompile it if necessary:
|
2015-06-10 17:22:02 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2014-11-01 23:15:15 +00:00
|
|
|
$ cd mu
|
2015-07-05 17:35:26 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-01 23:15:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
As a sneak peek, here's how you perform some simple arithmetic:
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
|
|
|
recipe example1 [
|
|
|
|
a:number <- add 2, 2
|
|
|
|
a <- multiply a, 3
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But it's easier to read in color:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='code example' src='html/example1.png' width='188px'>
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
Mu functions or 'recipes' are lists of instructions, one to a line. Each
|
2015-07-14 03:50:25 +00:00
|
|
|
instruction operates on some *ingredients* and returns some *products*.
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-07-14 03:50:25 +00:00
|
|
|
[products] <- instruction [ingredients]
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-05-11 19:00:50 +00:00
|
|
|
Result and ingredient *reagents* have to be variables. But you can have any
|
2015-07-14 03:50:25 +00:00
|
|
|
number of them. In particular you can have any number of products. For example,
|
2015-05-11 19:00:50 +00:00
|
|
|
you can perform integer division as follows:
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-07-28 21:33:22 +00:00
|
|
|
quotient:number, remainder:number <- divide-with-remainder 11, 3
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-07-29 22:55:05 +00:00
|
|
|
Each reagent can provide a name as well as its type separated by a colon. You
|
|
|
|
only have to specify the type the first time you mention a name, but you can
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
be more explicit if you choose. Types can be multiple words and even arbitrary
|
|
|
|
trees, like:
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
x:array:number:3 # x is an array of 3 numbers
|
|
|
|
y:list:number # y is a list of numbers
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
# without syntactic sugar
|
|
|
|
{z: (map (address array character) (list number))} # map from string to list of numbers
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-12-14 21:21:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
Try out the program now:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```shell
|
|
|
|
$ ./mu example1.mu
|
|
|
|
$
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not much to see yet, since it doesn't print anything. To print the result, try
|
|
|
|
adding the instruction `$print a` to the recipe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's a second example, of a recipe that can take ingredients:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='fahrenheit to celsius' src='html/f2c-1.png' width='426px'>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recipes can specify headers showing their expected ingredients and products,
|
2015-11-13 03:42:35 +00:00
|
|
|
separated by `->` (unlike the `<-` in *calls*).
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Since mu is a low-level VM language, it provides extra control at the cost of
|
2015-11-15 00:26:33 +00:00
|
|
|
verbosity. Using `local-scope`, you have explicit control over stack frames to
|
|
|
|
isolate your recipes (in a type-safe manner; more on that below). One
|
|
|
|
consequence: you have to explicitly `load-ingredients` after you set up the
|
|
|
|
stack.
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
An alternative syntax is what the above example is converted to internally:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='fahrenheit to celsius desugared' src='html/f2c-2.png' width='426px'>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The header gets dropped after checking types at call-sites, and after
|
|
|
|
replacing `load-ingredients` with explicit instructions to load each
|
|
|
|
ingredient separately, and to explicitly return products to the caller. After
|
|
|
|
this translation recipes are once again just lists of instructions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This alternative syntax isn't just an implementation detail. I've actually
|
|
|
|
found it easier to teach functions to non-programmers by starting with this
|
2015-11-13 03:42:35 +00:00
|
|
|
syntax, so that they can visualize a pipe from caller to callee, and see the
|
|
|
|
names of variables gradually get translated through the pipe.
|
2015-11-11 17:13:40 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A third example, this time illustrating conditionals:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='factorial example' src='html/factorial.png' width='330px'>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In spite of how it looks, this is still just a list of instructions.
|
|
|
|
Internally, the instructions `break` and `loop` get converted to `jump`
|
|
|
|
instructions to after the enclosing `}` or `{`, respectively.
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
Try out the factorial program now:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu factorial.mu
|
|
|
|
result: 120 # factorial of 5
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
You can also run its unit tests:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu test factorial.mu
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here's what one of the tests inside `factorial.mu` looks like:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:35:29 +00:00
|
|
|
<img alt='test example' src='html/factorial-test.png' width='250px'>
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Every test conceptually spins up a really lightweight virtual machine, so you
|
|
|
|
can do things like check the value of specific locations in memory. You can
|
|
|
|
also print to screen and check that the screen contains what you expect at the
|
|
|
|
end of a test. For example, `chessboard.mu` checks the initial position of a
|
|
|
|
game of chess (delimiting the edges of the screen with periods):
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:35:29 +00:00
|
|
|
<img alt='screen test' src='html/chessboard-test.png' width='320px'>
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Similarly you can fake the keyboard to pretend someone typed something:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
assume-keyboard [a2-a4]
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-06-08 21:24:05 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we add a file system, graphics, audio, network support and so on, we'll
|
|
|
|
augment scenarios with corresponding abilities to use them inside tests.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
The name of a reagent is for humans, but what the computer needs to access it is
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
its address. Mu maps names to addresses for you like in other languages, but
|
2015-01-03 03:04:15 +00:00
|
|
|
in a more transparent, lightweight, hackable manner. This instruction:
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
z:number <- add x:number, y:number
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
might turn into this:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
3:number <- add 1:number, 2:number
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
You shouldn't rely on the specific address Mu chooses for a variable, but it
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
will be unique (other variables won't clobber it) and consistent (all mentions
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
of the name will map to the same address inside a recipe).
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Things get more complicated when your recipes call other recipes. Mu
|
|
|
|
doesn't preserve uniqueness of addresses across recipes, so you need to
|
|
|
|
organize your names into spaces. At the start of each recipe (like
|
2015-03-20 03:50:00 +00:00
|
|
|
`factorial` above), set its *default space*:
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-07-05 17:40:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
local-scope
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```nim
|
|
|
|
new-default-space
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
or
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```nim
|
|
|
|
default-space:address:array:location <- new location:type, 30/capacity
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Without one of these lines, all variables in the recipe will be *global*,
|
|
|
|
something you rarely want. (Luckily, this is also the sort of mistake that
|
|
|
|
will be easily caught by tests.) *With* this line, all addresses in your
|
|
|
|
recipe will by default refer to one of the (30, in the final case) slots
|
|
|
|
inside this local space. (If you choose the last, most explicit option and
|
|
|
|
need more than 30 slots, mu will complain asking you to increase capacity.)
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Spaces can do more than just implement local variables. You can string them
|
|
|
|
together, pass them around, return them from functions, share them between
|
|
|
|
parallel routines, and much else. However, any function receiving a space has
|
|
|
|
to know the names and types of variables in it, so any instruction should
|
|
|
|
always receive spaces created by the same function, no matter how many times
|
|
|
|
it's run. (If you're familiar with lexical scope, this constraint is
|
|
|
|
identical to it.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
To string two spaces together, write one into slot 0 of the other. This
|
|
|
|
instruction chains a space received from its caller:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
0:address:array:location <- next-ingredient
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Once you've chained spaces together, you can access variables in them by
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
adding a 'space' property:
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
3:number/space:1
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
This reagent is the number in slot 3 of the space chained in slot 0 of the
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
default space. We usually call it slot 3 in the 'next space'. `/space:2` would
|
|
|
|
be the next space of the next space, and so on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
See `counters.mu` for an example of managing multiple accumulators at once
|
|
|
|
without allowing them to clobber each other. This is a classic example of the
|
|
|
|
sorts of things closures and objects are useful for in other languages. Spaces
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
in Mu provide the same functionality.
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
You can append arbitrary properties to reagents besides types and spaces. Just
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
separate them with slashes.
|
2014-12-14 21:21:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
x:array:number:3/uninitialized
|
2014-12-14 21:21:32 +00:00
|
|
|
y:string/tainted:yes
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
z:list:number/assign-once:true/assigned:false
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-12-14 21:21:32 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
Most properties are meaningless to Mu, and it'll silently skip them when
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
running, but they are fodder for *meta-programs* to check or modify your
|
|
|
|
programs, a task other languages typically hide from their programmers. For
|
|
|
|
example, where other programmers are restricted to the checks their type
|
2014-12-14 21:21:32 +00:00
|
|
|
system permits and forces them to use, you'll learn to create new checks that
|
|
|
|
make sense for your specific program. If it makes sense to perform different
|
|
|
|
checks in different parts of your program, you'll be able to do that.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
You can imagine each reagent as a table, rows separated by slashes, columns
|
|
|
|
within a row separated by colons. So the last example above would become
|
|
|
|
something like this:
|
2015-01-08 03:34:23 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
z : list : integer /
|
|
|
|
assign-once : true /
|
2015-01-08 03:34:23 +00:00
|
|
|
assigned : false
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
2014-11-01 23:15:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-01-03 02:57:49 +00:00
|
|
|
An alternative way to define factorial is by inserting *labels* and later
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
inserting code at them.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```nim
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
recipe factorial [
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
local-scope
|
2015-05-13 17:03:26 +00:00
|
|
|
n:number <- next-ingredient
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2016-02-13 07:51:44 +00:00
|
|
|
<base-case>
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
}
|
2016-02-13 07:51:44 +00:00
|
|
|
<recursive-case>
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-13 07:51:44 +00:00
|
|
|
after <base-case> [
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
# if n=0 return 1
|
2015-07-30 03:46:34 +00:00
|
|
|
zero?:boolean <- equal n, 0
|
|
|
|
break-unless zero?
|
2015-07-28 21:33:22 +00:00
|
|
|
reply 1
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
2016-02-13 07:51:44 +00:00
|
|
|
after <recursive-case> [
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
# return n * factorial(n-1)
|
2015-07-30 03:46:34 +00:00
|
|
|
x:number <- subtract n, 1
|
|
|
|
subresult:number <- factorial x
|
|
|
|
result:number <- multiply subresult, n
|
|
|
|
reply result
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
]
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(You'll find this version in `tangle.mu`.)
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-11 19:00:50 +00:00
|
|
|
Any instruction without ingredients or products that starts with a
|
|
|
|
non-alphanumeric character is a label. By convention we use '+' to indicate
|
2016-02-13 07:55:45 +00:00
|
|
|
recipe-local label names you can jump to, and surround in '<>' global label
|
|
|
|
names for inserting code at.
|
2015-02-02 20:19:47 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-01 23:34:33 +00:00
|
|
|
Another example, this time with concurrency.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-05-11 16:59:29 +00:00
|
|
|
recipe main [
|
2016-01-18 07:15:03 +00:00
|
|
|
start-running thread2
|
2015-05-11 16:59:29 +00:00
|
|
|
{
|
2015-07-28 21:33:22 +00:00
|
|
|
$print 34
|
2015-05-11 16:59:29 +00:00
|
|
|
loop
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
recipe thread2 [
|
|
|
|
{
|
2015-07-28 21:33:22 +00:00
|
|
|
$print 35
|
2015-05-11 16:59:29 +00:00
|
|
|
loop
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
]
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-05-11 16:59:29 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2014-12-13 08:33:20 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu fork.mu
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-01 23:34:33 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notice that it repeatedly prints either '34' or '35' at random. Hit ctrl-c to
|
|
|
|
stop.
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 16:48:06 +00:00
|
|
|
Yet another example forks two 'routines' that communicate over a channel:
|
2014-11-25 09:25:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2014-12-13 08:33:20 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu channel.mu
|
2014-11-25 09:25:20 +00:00
|
|
|
produce: 0
|
|
|
|
produce: 1
|
|
|
|
produce: 2
|
|
|
|
produce: 3
|
|
|
|
consume: 0
|
|
|
|
consume: 1
|
|
|
|
consume: 2
|
|
|
|
produce: 4
|
|
|
|
consume: 3
|
|
|
|
consume: 4
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
# The exact order above might shift over time, but you'll never see a number
|
|
|
|
# consumed before it's produced.
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-25 09:25:20 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
Channels are the unit of synchronization in Mu. Blocking on channels are the
|
2014-11-25 09:25:20 +00:00
|
|
|
only way tasks can sleep waiting for results. The plan is to do all I/O over
|
|
|
|
channels that wait for data to return.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Routines are expected to communicate purely by message passing, though nothing
|
|
|
|
stops them from sharing memory since all routines share a common address
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
space. However, idiomatic Mu will make it hard to accidentally read or clobber
|
2014-11-25 09:25:20 +00:00
|
|
|
random memory locations. Bounds checking is baked deeply into the semantics,
|
|
|
|
and pointer arithmetic will be mostly forbidden (except inside the memory
|
|
|
|
allocator and a few other places).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
---
|
|
|
|
|
2015-05-16 06:01:37 +00:00
|
|
|
If you're still reading, here are some more things to check out:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a) Look at the [chessboard program](http://akkartik.github.io/mu/html/chessboard.mu.html)
|
|
|
|
for a more complex example where I write tests showing blocking reads from the
|
|
|
|
keyboard and what gets printed to the screen -- things we don't typically
|
|
|
|
associate with automated tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
b) Try skimming the [colorized source code](http://akkartik.github.io/mu). I'd
|
|
|
|
like it to eventually be possible to get a pretty good sense for how things
|
|
|
|
work just by skimming the files in order, skimming the top of each file and
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
ignoring details lower down. Tell me how successful my efforts are.
|
2015-05-16 06:01:37 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c) Try running the tests:
|
2014-11-01 23:15:15 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2015-05-06 04:17:24 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu test
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 16:30:26 +00:00
|
|
|
You might also want to peek in the `.traces` directory, which automatically
|
2015-03-10 19:16:28 +00:00
|
|
|
includes logs for each test showing you just how it ran on my machine. If Mu
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
eventually gets complex enough that you have trouble running examples, these
|
|
|
|
logs might help figure out if my system is somehow different from yours or if
|
|
|
|
I've just been insufficiently diligent and my documentation is out of date.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-07-30 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
d) Try out the programming environment:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```shell
|
2015-09-05 18:50:49 +00:00
|
|
|
$ ./mu test edit # takes about 30s; shouldn't show any failures
|
|
|
|
$ ./mu edit
|
2015-08-10 23:14:38 +00:00
|
|
|
```
|
2015-07-30 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Screenshot:
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-13 15:40:11 +00:00
|
|
|
<img alt='programming environment' src='html/edit.png' width='720px'>
|
2015-07-30 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You write recipes on the left and try them out in *sandboxes* on the right.
|
2015-09-06 23:52:48 +00:00
|
|
|
Hit F4 to rerun all sandboxes with the latest version of the code. More
|
|
|
|
details: http://akkartik.name/post/mu. Beware, it won't save your edits by
|
|
|
|
default. But if you create a sub-directory called `lesson/` under `mu/` it
|
2015-07-30 21:16:30 +00:00
|
|
|
will. If you turn that directory into a git repo with `git init`, it will also
|
|
|
|
back up each version you try out.
|
|
|
|
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
Once you have a sandbox you can click on its result to mark it as expected:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='expected result' src='html/expected-result.png' width='180px'>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Later if the result changes it'll be flagged in red to draw your attention to
|
|
|
|
it. Thus, manually tested sandboxes become reproducible automated tests.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<img alt='unexpected result' src='html/unexpected-result.png' width='180px'>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another feature: Clicking on the code in a sandbox expands its trace for you
|
2015-08-13 15:58:41 +00:00
|
|
|
to browse. To add to the trace, use `stash`. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```nim
|
|
|
|
stash [first ingredient is ], x
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Invaluable for understanding complex control flow without cluttering up the
|
|
|
|
screen.
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2015-09-02 19:29:39 +00:00
|
|
|
The next major milestone on Mu's roadmap is support for recording and faking
|
2015-08-13 15:27:18 +00:00
|
|
|
console input to a sandbox, so that you can type in an input once and have it
|
|
|
|
replay everytime you hit F4. Once this support is in place it will be easy to
|
|
|
|
generalize to more interfaces, like requesting urls over a network or reading
|
|
|
|
files on a disk.
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-29 15:52:08 +00:00
|
|
|
**Credits**
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Mu builds on many ideas that have come before, especially:
|
|
|
|
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [Peter Naur](http://alistair.cockburn.us/ASD+book+extract%3A+%22Naur,+Ehn,+Musashi%22)
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
for articulating the paramount problem of programming: communicating a
|
|
|
|
codebase to others;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [Christopher Alexander](http://www.amazon.com/Notes-Synthesis-Form-Harvard-Paperbacks/dp/0674627512)
|
|
|
|
and [Richard Gabriel](http://dreamsongs.net/Files/PatternsOfSoftware.pdf) for
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
the intellectual tools for reasoning about the higher order design of a
|
|
|
|
codebase;
|
|
|
|
- Unix and C for showing us how to co-evolve language and OS, and for teaching
|
|
|
|
the (much maligned, misunderstood and underestimated) value of concise
|
|
|
|
*implementation* in addition to a clean interface;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- Donald Knuth's [literate programming](http://www.literateprogramming.com/knuthweb.pdf)
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
for liberating "code for humans to read" from the tyranny of compiler order;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [David Parnas](http://www.cs.umd.edu/class/spring2003/cmsc838p/Design/criteria.pdf)
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
and others for highlighting the value of separating concerns and stepwise
|
|
|
|
refinement;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [Lisp](http://www.paulgraham.com/rootsoflisp.html) for showing the power of
|
2015-06-24 22:46:30 +00:00
|
|
|
dynamic languages, late binding and providing the right primitives *a la
|
|
|
|
carte*, especially lisp macros;
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
- The folklore of debugging by print and the trace facility in many lisp
|
|
|
|
systems;
|
|
|
|
- Automated tests for showing the value of developing programs inside an
|
|
|
|
elaborate harness;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [Python doctest](http://docs.python.org/2/library/doctest.html) for
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
exemplifying interactive documentation that doubles as tests;
|
2014-11-26 15:04:04 +00:00
|
|
|
- [ReStructuredText](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReStructuredText)
|
|
|
|
and [its antecedents](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Setext) for showing that
|
2014-11-25 07:59:55 +00:00
|
|
|
markup can be clean;
|
|
|
|
- BDD for challenging us all to write tests at a higher level;
|
|
|
|
- JavaScript and CSS for demonstrating the power of a DOM for complex
|
|
|
|
structured documents.
|