[Moose-dev] Re: OFFTOPIC Re: Re: ideas for a new Famix

Doru, there is something in your mail configuration that is breaking the mail threads :) On Apr 10, 2013, at 8:57 AM, Tudor Girba &lt;tudor(a)tudorgirba.com&gt; wrote: Hi, On Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Nicolas Anquetil < Nicolas.Anquetil(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote: Trait has only one meaning in programming languages, and it denotes a mechanism for reuse. Multiple inheritance is also a mechanism for reuse. The difference lies in the semantics of specifying and handling the reuse. Yes. And the way we can get around the current Pharo Trait implementation is by using state dictionary, like we are doing now in MooseEntity. It does. No. we are aiming at composing meta-models and for that we need a language mechanism. Hence, talking about the mechanism makes perfect sense. And we will use Traits because it is the best on the market. Done that way, the discussion about trait and inheritance can be So again it will be kind of using traits again. I disagree. We keep a 1-to-1 mapping to Pharo. This is critical because we are using Pharo as the execution language and we do not want to deal with two model abstractions. Of course, we should also build tools, such as the MetaBrowser that make it easier for us to handle the meta-descriptions, but in the end we want to keep a clear mapping to Pharo code. This will save us a ton of trouble down the road. Given that Traits are already supported in the execution language (Pharo), we can directly use this 1-to-1 mapping without any problems. So, we will not rely on generation at all. The same as it is now. And we put in place tests that check the meta-descriptions. Generation only looks cheap, but as soon as you want to manipulate anything at the lower level, it becomes highly expensive. We managed to keep away from this and it payed off until now. I insist on this point :). > As for Alain's work. > I have it on my disk, but did not have the time to look at it yet. I think we should start from this one and see how we can support Fame-Traits in Java. Doru > nicolas > On 04/09/2013 12:11 PM, Tudor Girba wrote: > Hi, > Thanks for taking the time to lay this out. I am certainly interested > in participating. I agree with most of it, except one thing: multiple > inheritance. > As I said before, we should use Traits instead. There are only benefits > from using Traits: > - Traits are already supported by Pharo, making it easy to integrate > meta-descriptions with existing code due to the 1-to-1 mapping between > meta-descriptions and code, and thus benefits from tooling. > - Traits are better at dealing with conflicts. > - Java anyway does not have multiple inheritance, so choosing between > Traits and multiple inheritance has a similar impact. > - Traits can be used as types as well. > - Chef showed that we can nicely use Traits for navigation. > - And we already have a first version of a Traits extension to Fame > (built by Alain Plantec). > Cheers, > Doru > On Tue, Apr 9, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Nicolas Anquetil < > Nicolas.Anquetil(a)inria.fr&gt; wrote: >>> Hi guys, >>> Food for thoughts. >> It's a long one, but it is literally the result of years of thinking and >> discussing Famix in our group. >> This is still work in progress so that those who might want to >> participate have a chance to do it before everything is already decided. >>> You can call it a vision for the next Famix (and Fame incidentally) >>>> Although the goal of Famix is to be able to model systems in any >> language, the reality of it is that it focuses very much on OO, and more >> precisely on ST and Java. >> And even with only these two languages, it is already difficult. >> Famix is the union of ST + Java which means unneeded complexity when you >> deal with only one of the two. >>> Same happen when considering something outside the current scope. >> For example something as a C function calling another C function is >> currently represented as an invocation, which means it has a receiver (the >> object on which a message is sent, useless in C) and also a collection of >> candidates (whereas in C function names must be unique). >>> When working with different languages, mostly not OO, it started to >> annoy me, and I wanted to see how we could redesign a new Famix so that: >> - we have a bare core metamodel that is really language independent >> - something that is easily extensible so that one does not have to >> redefine basic stuff (what is a variable, a class, a method) >> - no "hidden" associations as the declaredType of a FamixStructuralEntity >> - it is completely model driven, which means we can regenerate all the >> code in Smalltalk, Java and other languages from the metamodel. Having Fame >> (and thus Famix) in Java helped a lot when I did VerveineJ. I can imagine >> having a C implementation of Fame could be nice to reuse old parsers based >> on Bison+Flex :-) >>> I had two other requirements steming from the way I see metamodels: >> primarily as conceptual representations of some domain. They should be as >> clear as possible about what is meant by the concepts and their >> relationships, and also it should be as close as possible from the human >> conception of the domain. >> This implies: >> - I want it to be typed. C and Java have types to guard the developer >> from making mistakes, I want types to clarify the meaning of the concepts, >> like defining an ontology >> - I want it to have multiple inheritance, with as little restrictions as >> possible (typical multiple inheritance problems in programming languages) >> to try to be closer from the abstract conception of the domain. >>> In short, we are looking for the Graal, nothing new here :-) >> Now the question is how far we can push it and how close can we get? >>> Discussing we had the idea of a GenericEntity, probably equivalent to >> the current FamixSourcedEntity. >> We could have generic FunctionEntity, VariableEntity, ClassEntity >> inheriting from GenericEntity; MethodEntity inheriting from FunctionEntity. >> And all these only stating consensual things like a class defines >> methods, a function defines variables. >>> Independent of that (meant to be used through multiple inheritance) we >> would have the idea that there are ContainerEntity, BehavioredEntity, >> TypedEntity, maybe even NamedEntity. >> So that FunctionEntity (which is a GenericEntity) would also be a >> BehavioredEntity + a NamedEntity. >>> Invocation would occur between two BehavioredEntity >>> And we could create new entities by combining all these things. >> For example, a JavaMethodEntity would inherit from MethodEntity + >> TypedEntity + ContainerEntity (may define classes) >> A PascalProgram could be a GenericEntity+ContainerEntity (contains >> functions)+BehavioredEntity >>>> All this would be declarative in the new Famix and translated in some >> way by Fame into different languages (lets concentrate on Pharo and Java >> for now). >> In a first step, behaviour to be reused (like navigation between a >> ContainerEntity and its members) could be stored directly in the metamodel >> for each target language and then copied appropriately when generating >> actual code. >> In a second step I also dream of using FAST (AST metamodeling, see >> http://youtu.be/dRr3WHOD3x4) to model the behaviour abstractly and then >> generate the code from that. >>>> I believe this would introduce only two real changes to Moose: First >> Fame would have to allow for multiple inheritance, second MooseChef would >> have to be re-designed to allow for new queries (at least ContainerEntity, >> BehavioredEntity). >> And of course, we would need to using it concretely to see whether it >> really helps considering new languages >>>> So this is about it. >> If you have any idea or comment on this, we will be glad to here from >> you. >> If you want to participate, we will be even gladder because we are not >> that many and it is a lot of work. >>> nicolas >>> -- >> Nicolas Anquetil -- RMod research team (Inria) >>> _______________________________________________ >> Moose-dev mailing list >> Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch >> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev >> -- > www.tudorgirba.com > "Every thing has its own flow" > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing listMoose-dev@iam.unibe.chhttps://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev > -- > Nicolas Anquetil -- RMod research team (Inria) > _______________________________________________ > Moose-dev mailing list > Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch > https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev -- www.tudorgirba.com "Every thing has its own flow" _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev _______________________________________________ Moose-dev mailing list Moose-dev(a)iam.unibe.ch https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev