Laziness without all the hard work: combining lazy and strict languages for teaching

ABSTRACT

Students have trouble understanding the difference between lazy and strict programming. It is difficult to compare the two directly, because popular strict languages and popular lazy languages differ in their syntax, in their type systems, and in other ways unrelated to the lazy/strict evaluation discipline.While teaching programming languages courses, we have discovered that an extension to PLT Scheme allows the system to accommodate both lazy and strict evaluation in the same system. Moreover, the extension is simple and transparent. Finally, the simple nature of the extension means that the resulting system provides a rich environment for both lazy and strict programs without modification.

REFERENCES

• 1: Harold Abelson , Gerald Jay Sussman , Julie Sussman, Structure and interpretation of computer programs, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1985
• 2: P. L. Bewig. SRFI 40: A library of streams. http://srfi.schemers.org/srfi-40/.
• 3: J. Clements, M. Felleisen, R. Findler, M. Flatt, and S. Krishnamurthi. Fostering little languages. Dr. Dobb's Journal, March 2004. (Invited Paper).
• 4: Matthias Felleisen, On the expressive power of programming languages, Science of Computer Programming, v.17 n.1-3, p.35-75, Dec. 1991
• 5: Robert Bruce Findler , John Clements , Cormac Flanagan , Matthew Flatt , Shriram Krishnamurthi , Paul Steckler , Matthias Felleisen, DrScheme: a programming environment for Scheme, Journal of Functional Programming, v.12 n.2, p.159-182, March 2002 [doi>10.1017/S0956796801004208]
• 6: M. Flatt. PLT MzScheme: Language manual. http://www.plt-scheme.org/software/|, 1996--2005.
• 7: Matthew Flatt, Composable and compilable macros:: you want it when?, Proceedings of the seventh ACM SIGPLAN international conference on Functional programming, p.72-83, October 04-06, 2002, Pittsburgh, PA, USA
• 8: Daniel P. Friedman , Christopher T. Haynes , Mitchell Wand, Essentials of programming languages (2nd ed.), Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2001
• 9: P. Hudak and P. Wadler. Report on the programming language Haskell. Technical Report YALE/DCS/RR777, Yale University, Department of Computer Science, August 1991.
• 10: N. I. Adams, IV , D. H. Bartley , G. Brooks , R. K. Dybvig , D. P. Friedman , R. Halstead , C. Hanson , C. T. Haynes , E. Kohlbecker , D. Oxley , K. M. Pitman , G. J. Rozas , G. L. Steele, Jr. , G. J. Sussman , M. Wand , H. Abelson, Revised5 report on the algorithmic language scheme, ACM SIGPLAN Notices, v.33 n.9, p.26-76, Sept. 1, 1998 [doi>10.1145/290229.290234]
• 11: S. Krishnamurthi. Programming languages: Application and interpretation. www.cs.brown.edu/ sk/Publications/Books/ProgLangs/|, 2003--2005.
• 12: John C. Reynolds, Definitional interpreters for higher-order programming languages, Proceedings of the ACM annual conference, p.717-740, August 01-01, 1972, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/800194.805852]
• 13: P. Wadler, W. Taha, and D. MacQueen. How to add laziness to a strict language, without even being odd. In Workshop on Standard ML, Baltimore, September 1998.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  D. Software
  D.3 PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES
      D.3.m Miscellaneous

General Terms:
Languages

Keywords:
PLT scheme, languages, lazy and eager evaluation, teaching programming