Advertisement

Abstract

Interactive programming is a method for implementing programming languages that supports an interactive, exploratory style of program development and debugging. The basic idea is to reify the steps of a computation into a persistent data structure which can be explored interactively, and which reacts to changes to inputs like a spreadsheet. Reifying the computation associates the computed value with provenance information, which is essential to effective program comprehension and debugging. Making the data structure persistent means that it can evolve incrementally, preserving existing structure where possible, allowing the programmer to apply fixes to a program in the middle of a complex debugging activity without having to restart the program and lose browsing context. Interactive programming lies at the intersection of incremental computation, software visualisation and reactive programming.

Keywords

Functional debugging reactive programming incremental computation software visualisation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Perera, R.: A first-order interactive programming language. Technical Report CSR-09-09, University of Birmingham, School of Computer Science (November 2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Shapiro, E.Y.: Algorithmic program debugging. ACM Distinguished Dissertations. MIT Press, Cambridge (1983)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kishon, A., Hudak, P.: Semantics directed program execution monitoring. Journal of Functional Programming 5(04), 501–547 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tanimoto, S.L.: VIVA: A visual language for image processing. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 1(2) (1990)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Driscoll, J.R., Sarnak, N., Sleator, D.D., Tarjan, R.E.: Making data structures persistent. In: STOC 1986: Proceedings of the eighteenth annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pp. 109–121. ACM Press, New York (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Michie, D.: Memo functions and machine learning. Nature 218, 19–22 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Filliâtre, J.C., Conchon, S.: Type-safe modular hash-consing. In: ML 2006: Proceedings of the 2006 workshop on ML, pp. 12–19. ACM Press, New York (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Acar, U.A.: Self-Adjusting Computation. Phd thesis, Department of Computing Science, Carnegie Mellon University (2005)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Elliott, C., Hudak, P.: Functional reactive animation. In: ICFP 1997: Proceedings of the Second ACM SIGPLAN International Conference on Functional programming, pp. 263–273. ACM, New York (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Edwards, J.: Subtext: uncovering the simplicity of programming. In: OOPSLA 2005: Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object oriented programming, systems, languages, and applications, pp. 505–518. ACM Press, New York (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nilsson, H., Sparud, J.: The evaluation dependence tree: an execution record for lazy functional debugging. Research Report LiTH-IDA-R-96-23, Department of Computer and Information Science, Linköping University, S-581 83, Linköping, Sweden (August 1996)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lewis, B.: Debugging backwards in time. In: Ronsse, M., De Bosschere, K. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fifth International Workshop on Automated Debugging (AADEBUG 2003) (September 2003)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roly Perera
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computer ScienceUniversity of Birmingham 

Personalised recommendations