How Sterling Worked
Sterling’s evaluation model is very simple and I felt it held a lot of promise because it made the language very flexible. Everything in Sterling is an expression. Some expressions accept a single argument—these were called lambdas. All expressions also contain sub-expressions, which could be accessed as attributes. With a little sugar, a bag of attributes could be made self-referencing and thus become an object.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Expressions could be built up to carry a high amount of capability. Because Sterling is untyped, decoration and ducktyping are used heavily to compose ever more features into expressions.
Sterling was directly inspired by Lambda Calculus. This had an enormous impact on the design of the language, the largest of which was how the language executed at runtime. Expressions in Sterling are represented as trees and leaves. Top-level expressions have names, and they could be inserted into other expressions by referencing those names.
1 2 3 4 5
Because each expression was a tree, no expression needed to be executed until its result was absolutely needed. This lazy execution model allows for very large, complex expressions to be built in one function then returned to the outside world to be further processed and executed. Functions could be created inline and passed as arguments to other functions, or constructed within functions and returned.
Sterling’s tree-based structure naturally supported a prototype-based object model. To modify an expression tree, the tree needed to create a copy of itself with any changes to it. All expressions, thus, were effective prototypes. This also had the benefit of directly supporting immutability and helped to enforce a functional programming paradigm.
What Could Have Been
Sterling’s syntax was designed to be very terse, readable, and orthogonal. By that I mean everything in Sterling should be an expression that can be used virtually anywhere for anything. Because Sterling was based on lambdas, this worked particularly well for arguments expressions because arguments could fold into the function call result on the left:
1 2 3 4 5
This folding capability meant that Sterling could support very expressive programming styles. Any function could be returned as the result of another function call and continue chaining against arguments. Sterling’s terse syntax also made defining functions very easy:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Because Sterling was intended to be immutable, objects would be used to represent state and carry behavior to return new state resulting from an operation:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Paul Hammant at one point suggested baking dependency injection directly into a language, and even offered I do this in Sterling. This drove development of a metadata system in Sterling that could be used to support metaprogramming and eventually dependency injection.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
The metadata system was very flexible and could support arbitrary meta annotations. The above metadata translates to the following map structures at runtime:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
I felt these functional features and expressive syntax would make for an enjoyable and productive programming experience. The meta system in particular I felt could become quite powerful especially for customizing load-time behavior of Sterling programs. However, some of my goals came with a few problems.
Sterling is amazingly slow. A natural consequence of a tree-based language is that trees must be copied and modified
for many operations, no matter how “trivial” they may be (integer arithmetic, for example.) Recursive functions like
fibonacci expression above had a particularly nasty characteristic of building enormous trees that took a lot of
time to reduce to single values.
The speed issues in Sterling were partially mitigated using memoization.
Memoization: Blessing But Possibly A Curse
Memoization increased the possibility for static state to hang around in an application. Applying arguments to an object constructor, for instance, would return a previously-constructed object. I’m not entirely sure what the total impact of the “object constructor problem” could have been, as objects are not mutable, but I didn’t like this charateristic nonetheless. Immutability, however, wasn’t entirely true (see “Escaping The Matrix” below).
Named expressions are persistent in memory. If a named expression took a large argument, or returned a large result, then the total memory cost of a memoizing expression could become quite high over time.
The Impacts Of Typelessness
Types are actually quite nice to have, and I began to miss them quite a bit the more I worked on Sterling. While
Sterling is very flexible (because it has no types) it also has very poor support for polymorphism (because it has no
types). Want to do something else if you receive an
Asteroid object rather than a
The naïve solution is to implement an if-case for each expected type:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
This is fragile, though, and the code is complex. What’s worse, is there’s no way to ensure that a method is receiving
Asteroid and not another object that simply implements its API. A better solution is to let the colliding object
select the proper method from the object it’s colliding with:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
This solution is better. It’s also similar to implementing visitor pattern
in Java. I still don’t like it because there’s no type safety and adding support for more types requires violating the
open/closed principle. For instance, in order for a
Bunny to be
correctly collided-with, a
collidedWithBunny method must be added to both
Asteroid. Developers may
find it easier instead to allow the
Bunny to masquerade as an asteroid:
1 2 3 4 5
This single-dispatch behavior means that for any argument applied to a method name, the same method will be dispatched. In the case of Java, this is determined by the type of a method’s arguments at compile time. Adding new methods for similarly-typed arguments requires all client code be recompiled. While Sterling may not have typing, it is still single-dispatch.
The lack of types became particularly painful when implementing arithmetic operations and compile-time analysis was nearly impossible without collecting a great deal of superfluous metadata.
Escaping The Matrix
As I worked on Sterling, I required functionality that wasn’t yet directly supportable in the language itself. I solved this problem using the “glue” expression that could tie into a Java-based expression:
1 2 3 4 5
For short-term problems, this option isn’t too bad, but it allows the programmer to escape the immutable “Matrix” of Sterling. For example, I implemented Sterling’s collections as thin wrappers around Java collections, and allowed them to be mutable. Actually, a lot of things in Sterling were mutable:
- Method collections on expressions
- Object methods
This, coupled with memoization, could cause a lot of issues with static state and had the potential to enable a lot of bad design decisions for programs written in Sterling.
The Good Parts
Despite the baggage, there’s a few takeaways!
Sterling’s syntax is very small and terse. I particularly enjoyed not having to type a lot of parentheses, braces, commas, and semicolons. Separating arguments by spaces allowed the language read like a book.
Most expressions can be delimited with whitespace alone, and because everything is an expression, objects could be created inline and if-cases could be used as arguments.
Operators are just methods. Any object or expression can define a “+” operator and customize what it does. With polymorphism supported with multi-methods, this can become an incredibly powerful feature.
Sterling also has the ability to define arbitrary metadata on any named expression. This metadata is gathered into a
meta attribute and can be inspected at runtime to support a sort of meta programming.
What I’m Carrying Forward
I’m now working on a new language project that will be borrowing Sterling’s syntax. This time, however, I will be using types. Algebraic data types hold a certain fascination for me, and I’m interested in seeing what I can do with them. At the very least, I do intend on using multi-methods for better polymorphism support.
I don’t think I like declaring scope. It’s verbose. Or declaring types. That should be restricted to places where it impacts execution, like function signatures.
While Sterling’s meta system didn’t really go anywhere, I do intend on carrying it forward as a supplement to algebraic types. I may even still bake in dependency injection because I hate all the typing required to tie together an application.
I don’t believe I will carry forward mandatory immutability, though I may support some form of “immutability by default”.
Sterling’s lazy evaluation caused a lot of headaches more than a few times. I’ll probably not make any successor language lazily evaluated because memoization becomes a near requirement in order to make lazy evaluation useful.