Dynamic languages such as Ruby, Python, and JavaScript have many compelling benefits, but the lack of static types means subtle errors can remain latent in code for a long time. While many researchers have developed various systems to bring some of the benefits of static types to dynamic languages, prior approaches have trouble dealing with metaprogramming, which generates code as the program executes. In this paper, we propose Hummingbird, a new system that uses a novel technique, just-in-time static type checking, to type check Ruby code even in the presence of metaprogramming. In Hummingbird, method type signatures are gathered dynamically at run-time, as those methods are created. When a method is called, Hummingbird statically type checks the method body against current type signatures. Thus, Hummingbird provides thorough static checks on a per-method basis, while also allowing arbitrarily complex metaprogramming. For performance, Hummingbird memoizes the static type checking pass, invalidating cached checks only if necessary. We formalize Hummingbird using a core, Ruby-like language and prove it sound. To evaluate Hummingbird, we applied it to six apps, including three that use Ruby on Rails, a powerful framework that relies heavily on metaprogramming. We found that all apps typecheck successfully using Hummingbird, and that Hummingbird’s performance overhead is reasonable. We applied Hummingbird to earlier versions of one Rails app and found several type errors that had been introduced and then fixed. Lastly, we demonstrate using Hummingbird in Rails development mode to typecheck an app as live updates are applied to it.
Gradual typing @cite_10 lets developers add types gradually as programs evolve; recently implemented gradual typing for Python @cite_17 . Like types @cite_6 bring some of the flexibility of dynamic typing to statically typed languages. The goal of these systems is to allow mixing of typed and untyped code. This is orthogonal to , which focuses on checking code with type annotations.
@cite_10 @cite_6 @cite_17
1568983194 2111531191 2102473657
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. Many large software systems originate from untyped scripting language code. While good for initial development, the lack of static type annotations can impact code-quality and performance in the long run. We present an approach for integrating untyped code and typed code in the same system to allow an initial prototype to smoothly evolve into an efficient and robust program. We introduce like types , a novel intermediate point between dynamic and static typing. Occurrences of like types variables are checked statically within their scope but, as they may be bound to dynamic values, their usage is checked dynamically. Thus like types provide some of the benefits of static typing without decreasing the expressiveness of the language. We provide a formal account of like types in a core object calculus and evaluate their applicability in the context of a new scripting language. Combining static and dynamic typing within the same language offers clear benefits to programmers. It provides dynamic typing in situations that require rapid prototyping, heterogeneous data structures, and reflection, while supporting static typing when safety, modularity, and efficiency are primary concerns. Siek and Taha (2006) introduced an approach to combining static and dynamic typing in a fine-grained manner through the notion of type consistency in the static semantics and run-time casts in the dynamic semantics. However, many open questions remain regarding the semantics of gradually typed languages. In this paper we present Reticulated Python, a system for experimenting with gradual-typed dialects of Python. The dialects are syntactically identical to Python 3 but give static and dynamic semantics to the type annotations already present in Python 3. Reticulated Python consists of a typechecker and a source-to-source translator from Reticulated Python to Python 3. Using Reticulated Python, we evaluate a gradual type system and three approaches to the dynamic semantics of mutable objects: the traditional semantics based on Siek and Taha (2007) and (2007) and two new designs. We evaluate these designs in the context of several third-party Python programs.