Related
What are some code examples demonstrating KeY’s strength?
Details
With so many Formal Method tools available, I was wondering where KeY is better than its competition, and how? Some readable code examples would be quite helpful for comparison and understanding.
Updates
Searching through the KeY website, I found code examples from the book — is there a suitable code example in there somewhere?
Furthermore, I found a paper about the bug that KeY found in Java 8’s mergeCollapse in TimSort. What is a minimal code from TimSort that demonstrates KeY’s strength? I do not understand, however, why model checking supposedly cannot find the bug — a bit array with 64 elements should not be too large to handle. Are other deductive verification tools just as capable of finding the bug?
Is there an established verification competition with suitable code examples?
This is a very hard question, which is why it hasn't yet been answered after having already been asked more than one year ago (and although we from the KeY community are well aware of it...).
The Power of Interaction
First, I'd like to point out that KeY is basically the only tool out there allowing for interactive proofs of Java programs. Although many proofs work automatically and we have quite powerful automatic strategies at hand, sometimes interaction is required to understand why a proof fails (too weak or even wrong specifications, wrong code or "just" a prover incapacity) and to add suitable corrections or strengthenings.
Feedback from Proof Inspection
Especially in the case of a prover incapacity (specification and program are OK, but the problem is too hard for the prover to succeed automatically), interaction is a powerful feature. Many program provers (like OpenJML, Dafny, Frama-C etc.) rely on SMT solvers in the backend which they feed with many more or less small verification conditions. The verification status for these conditions is then reported back to the user, basically as pass or fail -- or timeout. When an assertion failed, a user can change the program or refine the specifications, but cannot inspect the state of the proof to deduct information about why something went wrong; this style is sometimes called "auto-active" as opposed to interactive. While this can be quite convenient in many cases (especially when proofs pass, since the SMT solvers can be really quick in proving something), it can be hard to mine SMT solver output for information. Not even the SMT solvers themselves know why something went wrong (although they can produce a counterexample), as they just are fed a set of formulas for which they attempt to find a contradiction.
TimSort: A Complicated Algorithmic Problem
For the TimSort proof which you mentioned, we had to use a lot of interaction to make them pass. Take, for instance, the mergeHi method of the sorting algorithm which has been proven by one of the most experienced KeY power users known to me. In this proof of 460K proof nodes, 3K user interactions were necessary, consisting of quite a lot of simple ones like the hiding of distracting formulas, but also of 478 quantifier instantiations and about 300 cuts (on-line lemma introduction). The code of that method features many difficult Java features like nested loops with labeled breaks, integer overflows, bit arithmetic and so on; especially, there are a lot of potential exceptions and other reasons for branching in the proof tree (which is why in addition, also five manual state merging rule applications have been used in the proof). The workflow for proving this method basically was to give the strategies a try for some time, check the proof state afterward, prune back the proof and introduce a helpful lemma to reduce the overall proof work and to start again; occasionally, quantifiers were instantiated manually if the strategies failed to find the right instantiation directly by themselves, and proof tree branches were merged to tackle state explosion. I would just claim here that proving this code is (at least currently) not possible with auto-active tools, where you cannot guide the prover in that way, and also cannot obtain the right feedback for knowing how to guide it.
Strength of KeY
Concluding, I'd say that KeY's strong in proving hard algorithmic problems (like sorting etc.) where you have complicated quantified invariants and integer arithmetic with overflows, and where you need to find quantifier instantiations and small lemmas on the fly by inspecting and interacting with the proof state. The KeY approach of semi-interactive verification also excels in general for cases where SMT solvers time out, such that a user cannot tell whether something is wrong or an additional lemma is required.
KeY can of course also proof "simple" problems, however there you need to take care that your program does not contain an unsupported Java feature like floating point numbers or multithreading; also, library methods can be quite a problem if they're not yet specified in JML (but this problem applies to other approaches as well).
Ongoing Developments
As a side remark, I also would like to point out that KeY is now more and more being transformed to a platform for static analysis of different kinds of program properties (not only functional correctness of Java programs). On the one hand, we have developed tools such as the Symbolic Execution Debugger which can be used also by non-experts to examine the behavior of a sequential Java program. On the other hand, we are currently busy in refactoring the architecture of the system for making it possible to add frontends for languages different than Java (in our internal project "KeY-RED"); furthermore, there are ongoing efforts to modernize the Java frontend such that also newer language features like Lambdas and so on are supported. We are also looking into relational properties like compiler correctness. And while we already support the integration of third-party SMT solvers, our integrated logic core will still be there to support understanding proof situations and manual interactions for cases where SMT and automation fails.
TimSort Code Example
Since you asked for a code example... I cannot right know think of "the" code example showing KeY's strength, but maybe for giving you a flavor of the complexity of mergeHi in the TimSort algorithm, here a shortened excerpt with some comments (the full method has about 100 lines of code):
private void mergeHi(int base1, int len1, int base2, int len2) {
// ...
T[] tmp = ensureCapacity(len2); // Method call by contract
System.arraycopy(a, base2, tmp, 0, len2); // Manually specified library method
// ...
a[dest--] = a[cursor1--]; // potential overflow, NullPointerException, ArrayIndexOutOfBoundsException
if (--len1 == 0) {
System.arraycopy(tmp, 0, a, dest - (len2 - 1), len2);
return; // Proof branching
}
if (len2 == 1) {
// ...
return; // Proof branching
}
// ...
outer: // Loop labels...
while (true) {
// ...
do { // Nested loop
if (c.compare(tmp[cursor2], a[cursor1]) < 0) {
// ...
if (--len1 == 0)
break outer; // Labeled break
} else {
// ...
if (--len2 == 1)
break outer; // Labeled break
}
} while ((count1 | count2) < minGallop); // Bit arithmetic
do { // 2nd nested loop
// That's one complex statement below...
count1 = len1 - gallopRight(tmp[cursor2], a, base1, len1, len1 - 1, c);
if (count1 != 0) {
// ...
if (len1 == 0)
break outer;
}
// ...
if (--len2 == 1)
break outer;
count2 = len2 - gallopLeft(a[cursor1], tmp, 0, len2, len2 - 1, c);
if (count2 != 0) {
// ...
if (len2 <= 1)
break outer;
}
a[dest--] = a[cursor1--];
if (--len1 == 0)
break outer;
// ...
} while (count1 >= MIN_GALLOP | count2 >= MIN_GALLOP);
// ...
} // End of "outer" loop
this.minGallop = minGallop < 1 ? 1 : minGallop; // Write back to field
if (len2 == 1) {
// ...
} else if (len2 == 0) {
throw new IllegalArgumentException(
"Comparison method violates its general contract!");
} else {
System.arraycopy(tmp, 0, a, dest - (len2 - 1), len2);
}
}
Verification Competition
VerifyThis is an established competition for logic-based verification tools which will have its 7th iteration in 2019. The concrete challenges for past events can be downloaded from the "archive" section of the website I linked. Two KeY teams participated there in 2017. The overall winner that year was Why3. An interesting observation is that there was one problem, Pair Insertion Sort, which came as a simplified and as an optimized Java version, for which no team succeeded in verifying the real-world optimized version on site. However, a KeY team finished that proof in the weeks after the event. I think that highlights my point: KeY proofs of difficult algorithmic problems take their time and require expertise, but they're likely to succeed due to the combined power of strategies and interaction.
What are all the factors one should consider in order to compare 3 formal verification tools?
Eg: Jaspergold, Onespin, Incisive.
From my little research, Jaspergold comes on top. But i want to do it myself on a project.
I have noted down some points such as
1.Supported languages(vhdl, sv, verilog, sva, psl,etc)
2.GUI
3.Capability(how much big design can they handle)
4.Number of Evaluation cycles
5.Performance(How fast they find proof or counter example)
With what other features can i extend this list?
Thanks!
So I'm trying to teach myself Haskell. I am currently on the 11th chapter of Learn You a Haskell for Great Good and am doing the 99 Haskell Problems as well as the Project Euler Problems.
Things are going alright, but I find myself constantly doing something whenever I need to keep track of "variables". I just create another function that accepts those "variables" as parameters and recursively feed it different values depending on the situation. To illustrate with an example, here's my solution to Problem 7 of Project Euler, Find the 10001st prime:
answer :: Integer
answer = nthPrime 10001
nthPrime :: Integer -> Integer
nthPrime n
| n < 1 = -1
| otherwise = nthPrime' n 1 2 []
nthPrime' :: Integer -> Integer -> Integer -> [Integer] -> Integer
nthPrime' n currentIndex possiblePrime previousPrimes
| isFactorOfAnyInThisList possiblePrime previousPrimes = nthPrime' n currentIndex theNextPossiblePrime previousPrimes
| otherwise =
if currentIndex == n
then possiblePrime
else nthPrime' n currentIndexPlusOne theNextPossiblePrime previousPrimesPlusCurrentPrime
where currentIndexPlusOne = currentIndex + 1
theNextPossiblePrime = nextPossiblePrime possiblePrime
previousPrimesPlusCurrentPrime = possiblePrime : previousPrimes
I think you get the idea. Let's also just ignore the fact that this solution can be made to be more efficient, I'm aware of this.
So my question is kind of a two-part question. First, am I going about Haskell all wrong? Am I stuck in the imperative programming mindset and not embracing Haskell as I should? And if so, as I feel I am, how do avoid this? Is there a book or source you can point me to that might help me think more Haskell-like?
Your help is much appreciated,
-Asaf
Am I stuck in the imperative programming mindset and not embracing
Haskell as I should?
You are not stuck, at least I don't hope so. What you experience is absolutely normal. While you were working with imperative languages you learned (maybe without knowing) to see programming problems from a very specific perspective - namely in terms of the van Neumann machine.
If you have the problem of, say, making a list that contains some sequence of numbers (lets say we want the first 1000 even numbers), you immediately think of: a linked list implementation (perhaps from the standard library of your programming language), a loop and a variable that you'd set to a starting value and then you would loop for a while, updating the variable by adding 2 and putting it to the end of the list.
See how you mostly think to serve the machine? Memory locations, loops, etc.!
In imperative programming, one thinks about how to manipulate certain memory cells in a certain order to arrive at the solution all the time. (This is, btw, one reason why beginners find learning (imperative) programming hard. Non programmers are simply not used to solve problems by reducing it to a sequence of memory operations. Why should they? But once you've learned that, you have the power - in the imperative world. For functional programming you need to unlearn that.)
In functional programming, and especially in Haskell, you merely state the construction law of the list. Because a list is a recursive data structure, this law is of course also recursive. In our case, we could, for example say the following:
constructStartingWith n = n : constructStartingWith (n+2)
And almost done! To arrive at our final list we only have to say where to start and how many we want:
result = take 1000 (constructStartingWith 0)
Note that a more general version of constructStartingWith is available in the library, it is called iterate and it takes not only the starting value but also the function that makes the next list element from the current one:
iterate f n = n : iterate f (f n)
constructStartingWith = iterate (2+) -- defined in terms of iterate
Another approach is to assume that we had another list our list could be made from easily. For example, if we had the list of the first n integers we could make it easily into the list of even integers by multiplying each element with 2. Now, the list of the first 1000 (non-negative) integers in Haskell is simply
[0..999]
And there is a function map that transforms lists by applying a given function to each argument. The function we want is to double the elements:
double n = 2*n
Hence:
result = map double [0..999]
Later you'll learn more shortcuts. For example, we don't need to define double, but can use a section: (2*) or we could write our list directly as a sequence [0,2..1998]
But not knowing these tricks yet should not make you feel bad! The main challenge you are facing now is to develop a mentality where you see that the problem of constructing the list of the first 1000 even numbers is a two staged one: a) define how the list of all even numbers looks like and b) take a certain portion of that list. Once you start thinking that way you're done even if you still use hand written versions of iterate and take.
Back to the Euler problem: Here we can use the top down method (and a few basic list manipulation functions one should indeed know about: head, drop, filter, any). First, if we had the list of primes already, we can just drop the first 1000 and take the head of the rest to get the 1001th one:
result = head (drop 1000 primes)
We know that after dropping any number of elements form an infinite list, there will still remain a nonempty list to pick the head from, hence, the use of head is justified here. When you're unsure if there are more than 1000 primes, you should write something like:
result = case drop 1000 primes of
[] -> error "The ancient greeks were wrong! There are less than 1001 primes!"
(r:_) -> r
Now for the hard part. Not knowing how to proceed, we could write some pseudo code:
primes = 2 : {-an infinite list of numbers that are prime-}
We know for sure that 2 is the first prime, the base case, so to speak, thus we can write it down. The unfilled part gives us something to think about. For example, the list should start at some value that is greater 2 for obvious reason. Hence, refined:
primes = 2 : {- something like [3..] but only the ones that are prime -}
Now, this is the point where there emerges a pattern that one needs to learn to recognize. This is surely a list filtered by a predicate, namely prime-ness (it does not matter that we don't know yet how to check prime-ness, the logical structure is the important point. (And, we can be sure that a test for prime-ness is possible!)). This allows us to write more code:
primes = 2 : filter isPrime [3..]
See? We are almost done. In 3 steps, we have reduced a fairly complex problem in such a way that all that is left to write is a quite simple predicate.
Again, we can write in pseudocode:
isPrime n = {- false if any number in 2..n-1 divides n, otherwise true -}
and can refine that. Since this is almost haskell already, it is too easy:
isPrime n = not (any (divides n) [2..n-1])
divides n p = n `rem` p == 0
Note that we did not do optimization yet. For example we can construct the list to be filtered right away to contain only odd numbers, since we know that even ones are not prime. More important, we want to reduce the number of candidates we have to try in isPrime. And here, some mathematical knowledge is needed (the same would be true if you programmed this in C++ or Java, of course), that tells us that it suffices to check if the n we are testing is divisible by any prime number, and that we do not need to check divisibility by prime numbers whose square is greater than n. Fortunately, we have already defined the list of prime numbers and can pick the set of candidates from there! I leave this as exercise.
You'll learn later how to use the standard library and the syntactic sugar like sections, list comprehensions, etc. and you will gradually give up to write your own basic functions.
Even later, when you have to do something in an imperative programming language again, you'll find it very hard to live without infinte lists, higher order functions, immutable data etc.
This will be as hard as going back from C to Assembler.
Have fun!
It's ok to have an imperative mindset at first. With time you will get more used to things and start seeing the places where you can have more functional programs. Practice makes perfect.
As for working with mutable variables you can kind of keep them for now if you follow the rule of thumb of converting variables into function parameters and iteration into tail recursion.
Off the top of my head:
Typeclassopedia. The official v1 of the document is a pdf, but the author has moved his v2 efforts to the Haskell wiki.
What is a monad? This SO Q&A is the best reference I can find.
What is a Monad Transformer? Monad Transformers Step by Step.
Learn from masters: Good Haskell source to read and learn from.
More advanced topics such as GADTs. There's a video, which does a great job explaining it.
And last but not least, #haskell IRC channel. Nothing can even come close to talk to real people.
I think the big change from your code to more haskell like code is using higher order functions, pattern matching and laziness better. For example, you could write the nthPrime function like this (using a similar algorithm to what you did, again ignoring efficiency):
nthPrime n = primes !! (n - 1) where
primes = filter isPrime [2..]
isPrime p = isPrime' p [2..p - 1]
isPrime' p [] = True
isPrime' p (x:xs)
| (p `mod` x == 0) = False
| otherwise = isPrime' p xs
Eg nthPrime 4 returns 7. A few things to note:
The isPrime' function uses pattern matching to implement the function, rather than relying on if statements.
the primes value is an infinite list of all primes. Since haskell is lazy, this is perfectly acceptable.
filter is used rather than reimplemented that behaviour using recursion.
With more experience you will find you will write more idiomatic haskell code - it sortof happens automatically with experience. So don't worry about it, just keep practicing, and reading other people's code.
Another approach, just for variety! Strong use of laziness...
module Main where
nonmults :: Int -> Int -> [Int] -> [Int]
nonmults n next [] = []
nonmults n next l#(x:xs)
| x < next = x : nonmults n next xs
| x == next = nonmults n (next + n) xs
| otherwise = nonmults n (next + n) l
select_primes :: [Int] -> [Int]
select_primes [] = []
select_primes (x:xs) =
x : (select_primes $ nonmults x (x + x) xs)
main :: IO ()
main = do
let primes = select_primes [2 ..]
putStrLn $ show $ primes !! 10000 -- the first prime is index 0 ...
I want to try to answer your question without using ANY functional programming or math, not because I don't think you will understand it, but because your question is very common and maybe others will benefit from the mindset I will try to describe. I'll preface this by saying I an not a Haskell expert by any means, but I have gotten past the mental block you have described by realizing the following:
1. Haskell is simple
Haskell, and other functional languages that I'm not so familiar with, are certainly very different from your 'normal' languages, like C, Java, Python, etc. Unfortunately, the way our psyche works, humans prematurely conclude that if something is different, then A) they don't understand it, and B) it's more complicated than what they already know. If we look at Haskell very objectively, we will see that these two conjectures are totally false:
"But I don't understand it :("
Actually you do. Everything in Haskell and other functional languages is defined in terms of logic and patterns. If you can answer a question as simple as "If all Meeps are Moops, and all Moops are Moors, are all Meeps Moors?", then you could probably write the Haskell Prelude yourself. To further support this point, consider that Haskell lists are defined in Haskell terms, and are not special voodoo magic.
"But it's complicated"
It's actually the opposite. It's simplicity is so naked and bare that our brains have trouble figuring out what to do with it at first. Compared to other languages, Haskell actually has considerably fewer "features" and much less syntax. When you read through Haskell code, you'll notice that almost all the function definitions look the same stylistically. This is very different than say Java for example, which has constructs like Classes, Interfaces, for loops, try/catch blocks, anonymous functions, etc... each with their own syntax and idioms.
You mentioned $ and ., again, just remember they are defined just like any other Haskell function and don't necessarily ever need to be used. However, if you didn't have these available to you, over time, you would likely implement these functions yourself when you notice how convenient they can be.
2. There is no Haskell version of anything
This is actually a great thing, because in Haskell, we have the freedom to define things exactly how we want them. Most other languages provide building blocks that people string together into a program. Haskell leaves it up to you to first define what a building block is, before building with it.
Many beginners ask questions like "How do I do a For loop in Haskell?" and innocent people who are just trying to help will give an unfortunate answer, probably involving a helper function, and extra Int parameter, and tail recursing until you get to 0. Sure, this construct can compute something like a for loop, but in no way is it a for loop, it's not a replacement for a for loop, and in no way is it really even similar to a for loop if you consider the flow of execution. Similar is the State monad for simulating state. It can be used to accomplish similar things as static variables do in other languages, but in no way is it the same thing. Most people leave off the last tidbit about it not being the same when they answer these kinds of questions and I think that only confuses people more until they realize it on their own.
3. Haskell is a logic engine, not a programming language
This is probably least true point I'm trying to make, but hear me out. In imperative programming languages, we are concerned with making our machines do stuff, perform actions, change state, and so on. In Haskell, we try to define what things are, and how are they supposed to behave. We are usually not concerned with what something is doing at any particular time. This certainly has benefits and drawbacks, but that's just how it is. This is very different than what most people think of when you say "programming language".
So that's my take how how to leave an imperative mindset and move to a more functional mindset. Realizing how sensible Haskell is will help you not look at your own code funny anymore. Hopefully thinking about Haskell in these ways will help you become a more productive Haskeller.
I just want to know what the difference between all the conditional statements in objective-c and which one is faster and lighter.
One piece of advice: stop worrying about which language constructs are microscopically faster or slower than which others, and instead focus on which ones let you express yourself best.
If and case statements described
While statement described
Since these statements do different things, it is unproductive to debate which is faster.
It's like asking whether a hammer is faster than a screwdriver.
The language-agnostic version (mostly, obviously this doesn't count for declarative languages or other weird ones):
When I was taught programming (quite a while ago, I'll freely admit), a language consisted of three ways of executing instructions:
sequence (doing things in order).
selection (doing one of many things).
iteration (doing something zero or more times).
The if and case statements are both variants on selection. If is used to select one of two different options based on a condition (using pseudo-code):
if condition:
do option 1
else:
do option 2
keeping in mind that the else may not be needed in which case it's effectively else do nothing. Also remember that option 1 or 2 may also consist of any of the statement types, including more if statements (called nesting).
Case is slightly different - it's generally meant for more than two choices like when you want to do different things based on a character:
select ch:
case 'a','e','i','o','u':
print "is a vowel"
case 'y':
print "never quite sure"
default:
print "is a consonant"
Note that you can use case for two options (or even one) but it's a bit like killing a fly with a thermonuclear warhead.
While is not a selection variant but an iteration one. It belongs with the likes of for, repeat, until and a host of other possibilities.
As to which is fastest, it doesn't matter in the vast majority of cases. The compiler writers know far more than we mortal folk how to get the last bit of performance out of their code. You either trust them to do their job right or you hand-code it in assembly yourself (I'd prefer the former).
You'll get far more performance by concentrating on the macro view rather than the minor things. That includes selection of appropriate algorithms, profiling, and targeting of hot spots. It does little good to find something that take five minutes each month and get that running in two minutes. Better to get a smaller improvement in something happening every minute.
The language constructs like if, while, case and so on will already be as fast as they can be since they're used heavily and are relative simple. You should be first writing your code for readability and only worrying about performance when it becomes an issue (see YAGNI).
Even if you found that using if/goto combinations instead of case allowed you to run a bit faster, the resulting morass of source code would be harder to maintain down the track.
while isn't a conditional it is a loop. The difference being that the body of a while-loop can be executed many times, the body of a conditional will only be executed once or not at all.
The difference between if and switch is that if accepts an arbitrary expression as the condition and switch just takes values to compare against. Basically if you have a construct like if(x==0) {} else if(x==1) {} else if(x==2) ..., it can be written much more concisely (and effectively) by using switch.
A case statement could be written as
if (a)
{
// Do something
}
else if (b)
{
// Do something else
}
But the case is much more efficient, since it only evaluates the conditional once and then branches.
while is only useful if you want a condition to be evaluated, and the associated code block executed, multiple times. If you expect a condition to only occur once, then it's equivalent to if. A more apt comparison is that while is a more generalized for.
Each condition statement serves a different purpose and you won't use the same one in every situation. Learn which ones are appropriate for which situation and then write your code. If you profile your code and find there's a bottleneck, then you go ahead and address it. Don't worry about optimizing before there's actually a problem.
Are you asking whether an if structure will execute faster than a switch statement inside of a large loop? If so, I put together a quick test, this code was put into the viewDidLoad method of a new view based project I just created in the latest Xcode and iPhone SDK:
NSLog(#"Begin loop");
NSDate *loopBegin = [NSDate date];
int ctr0, ctr1, ctr2, ctr3, moddedNumber;
ctr0 = 0;
ctr1 = 0;
ctr2 = 0;
ctr3 = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 10000000; i++) {
moddedNumber = i % 4;
// 3.34, 1.23s in simulator
if (moddedNumber == 0)
{
ctr0++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 1)
{
ctr1++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 2)
{
ctr2++;
}
else if (moddedNumber == 3)
{
ctr3++;
}
// 4.11, 1.34s on iPod Touch
/*switch (moddedNumber)
{
case 0:
ctr0++;
break;
case 1:
ctr1++;
break;
case 2:
ctr2++;
break;
case 3:
ctr3++;
break;
}*/
}
NSTimeInterval elapsed = [[NSDate date] timeIntervalSinceDate:loopBegin];
NSLog(#"End loop: %f seconds", elapsed );
This code sample is by no means complete, because as pointed out earlier if you have a situation that comes up more times than the others, you would of course want to put that one up front to reduce the total number of comparisons. It does show that the if structure would execute a bit faster in a situation where the decisions are more or less equally divided among the branches.
Also, keep in mind that the results of this little test varied widely in performance between running it on a device vs. running it in the emulator. The times cited in the code comments are running on an actual device. (The first time shown is the time to run the loop the first time the code was run, and the second number was the time when running the same code again without rebuilding.)
There are conditional statements and conditional loops. (If Wikipedia is to be trusted, then simply referring to "a conditional" in programming doesn't cover conditional loops. But this is a minor terminology issue.)
Shmoopty said "Since these statements do different things, it is nonsensical to debate which is faster."
Well... it may be time poorly spent, but it's not nonsensical. For instance, let's say you have an if statement:
if (cond) {
code
}
You can transform that into a loop that executes at most one time:
while (cond) {
code
break;
}
The latter will be slower in pretty much any language (or the same speed, because the optimizer turned it back into the original if behind the scenes!) Still, there are occasions in computer programming where (due to bizarre circumstances) the convoluted thing runs faster
But those incidents are few and far between. The focus should be on your code--what makes it clearest, and what captures your intent.
loops and branches are hard to explain briefly, to get the best code out of a construct in any c-style language depends on the processor used and the local context of the code. The main objective is to reduce the breaking of the execution pipeline -- primarily by reducing branch mispredictions.
I suggest you go here for all your optimization needs. The manuals are written for the c-style programmer and relatively easy to understand if you know some assembly. These manuals should explain to you the subtleties in modern processors, the strategies used by top compilers, and the best way to structure code to get the most out of it.
I just remembered the most important thing about conditionals and branching code. Order your code as follows
if(x==1); //80% of the time
else if(x==2); // 10% of the time
else if(x==3); //6% of the time
else break;
You must use an else sequence... and in this case the prediction logic in your CPU will predict correctly for x==1 and avoid the breaking of your pipeline for 80% of all execution.
More information from intel. Particularly:
In order to effectively write your code to take advantage of these rules, when writing if-else or switch statements, check the most common cases first and work progressively down to the least common. Loops do not necessarily require any special ordering of code for static branch prediction, as only the condition of the loop iterator is normally used.
By following this rule you are flat-out giving the CPU hints about how to bias its prediction logic towards your chained conditionals.
I'm teaching/helping a student to program.
I remember the following process always helped me when I started; It looks pretty intuitive and I wonder if someone else have had a similar approach.
Read the problem and understand it ( of course ) .
Identify possible "functions" and variables.
Write how would I do it step by step ( algorithm )
Translate it into code, if there is something you cannot do, create a function that does it for you and keep moving.
With the time and practice I seem to have forgotten how hard it was to pass from problem description to a coding solution, but, by applying this method I managed to learn how to program.
So for a project description like:
A system has to calculate the price of an Item based on the following rules ( a description of the rules... client, discounts, availability etc.. etc.etc. )
I first step is to understand what the problem is.
Then identify the item, the rules the variables etc.
pseudo code something like:
function getPrice( itemPrice, quantity , clientAge, hourOfDay ) : int
if( hourOfDay > 18 ) then
discount = 5%
if( quantity > 10 ) then
discount = 5%
if( clientAge > 60 or < 18 ) then
discount = 5%
return item_price - discounts...
end
And then pass it to the programming language..
public class Problem1{
public int getPrice( int itemPrice, int quantity,hourOdDay ) {
int discount = 0;
if( hourOfDay > 10 ) {
// uh uh.. U don't know how to calculate percentage...
// create a function and move on.
discount += percentOf( 5, itemPriece );
.
.
.
you get the idea..
}
}
public int percentOf( int percent, int i ) {
// ....
}
}
Did you went on a similar approach?.. Did some one teach you a similar approach or did you discovered your self ( as I did :( )
I go via the test-driven approach.
1. I write down (on paper or plain text editor) a list of tests or specification that would satisfy the needs of the problem.
- simple calculations (no discounts and concessions) with:
- single item
- two items
- maximum number of items that doesn't have a discount
- calculate for discounts based on number of items
- buying 10 items gives you a 5% discount
- buying 15 items gives you a 7% discount
- etc.
- calculate based on hourly rates
- calculate morning rates
- calculate afternoon rates
- calculate evening rates
- calculate midnight rates
- calculate based on buyer's age
- children
- adults
- seniors
- calculate based on combinations
- buying 10 items in the afternoon
2. Look for the items that I think would be the easiest to implement and write a test for it. E.g single items looks easy
The sample using Nunit and C#.
[Test] public void SingleItems()
{
Assert.AreEqual(5, GetPrice(5, 1));
}
Implement that using:
public decimal GetPrice(decimal amount, int quantity)
{
return amount * quantity; // easy!
}
Then move on to the two items.
[Test]
public void TwoItemsItems()
{
Assert.AreEqual(10, GetPrice(5, 2));
}
The implementation still passes the test so move on to the next test.
3. Be always on the lookout for duplication and remove it. You are done when all the tests pass and you can no longer think of any test.
This doesn't guarantee that you will create the most efficient algorithm, but as long as you know what to test for and it all passes, it will guarantee that you are getting the right answers.
the old-school OO way:
write down a description of the problem and its solution
circle the nouns, these are candidate objects
draw boxes around the verbs, these are candidate messages
group the verbs with the nouns that would 'do' the action; list any other nouns that would be required to help
see if you can restate the solution using the form noun.verb(other nouns)
code it
[this method preceeds CRC cards, but its been so long (over 20 years) that I don't remember where i learned it]
when learning programming I don't think TDD is helpful. TDD is good later on when you have some concept of what programming is about, but for starters, having an environment where you write code and see the results in the quickest possible turn around time is the most important thing.
I'd go from problem statement to code instantly. Hack it around. Help the student see different ways of composing software / structuring algorithms. Teach the student to change their minds and rework the code. Try and teach a little bit about code aesthetics.
Once they can hack around code.... then introduce the idea of formal restructuring in terms of refactoring. Then introduce the idea of TDD as a way to make the process a bit more robust. But only once they are feeling comfortable in manipulating code to do what they want. Being able to specify tests is then somewhat easier at that stage. The reason is that TDD is about Design. When learning you don't really care so much about design but about what you can do, what toys do you have to play with, how do they work, how do you combine them together. Once you have a sense of that, then you want to think about design and thats when TDD really kicks in.
From there I'd start introducing micro patterns leading into design patterns
I did something similar.
Figure out the rules/logic.
Figure out the math.
Then try and code it.
After doing that for a couple of months it just gets internalized. You don't realize your doing it until you come up against a complex problem that requires you to break it down.
I start at the top and work my way down. Basically, I'll start by writing a high level procedure, sketch out the details inside of it, and then start filling in the details.
Say I had this problem (yoinked from project euler)
The sum of the squares of the first
ten natural numbers is, 1^2 + 2^2 +
... + 10^2 = 385
The square of the sum of the first ten
natural numbers is, (1 + 2 + ... +
10)^2 = 55^2 = 3025
Hence the difference between the sum
of the squares of the first ten
natural numbers and the square of the
sum is 3025 385 = 2640.
Find the difference between the sum of
the squares of the first one hundred
natural numbers and the square of the
sum.
So I start like this:
(display (- (sum-of-squares (list-to 10))
(square-of-sums (list-to 10))))
Now, in Scheme, there is no sum-of-squares, square-of-sums or list-to functions. So the next step would be to build each of those. In building each of those functions, I may find I need to abstract out more. I try to keep things simple so that each function only really does one thing. When I build some piece of functionality that is testable, I write a unit test for it. When I start noticing a logical grouping for some data, and the functions that act on them, I may push it into an object.
I've enjoyed TDD every since it was introduced to me. Helps me plan out my code, and it just puts me at ease having all my tests return with "success" every time I modify my code, letting me know I'm going home on time today!
Wishful thinking is probably the most important tool to solve complex problems. When in doubt, assume that a function exists to solve your problem (create a stub, at first). You'll come back to it later to expand it.
A good book for beginners looking for a process: Test Driven Development: By Example
My dad had a bunch of flow chart stencils that he used to make me use when he was first teaching me about programming. to this day I draw squares and diamonds to build out a logical process of how to analyze a problem.
I think there are about a dozen different heuristics I know of when it comes to programming and so I tend to go through the list at times with what I'm trying to do. At the start, it is important to know what is the desired end result and then try to work backwards to find it.
I remember an Algorithms class covering some of these ways like:
Reduce it to a known problem or trivial problem
Divide and conquer (MergeSort being a classic example here)
Use Data Structures that have the right functions (HeapSort being an example here)
Recursion (Knowing trivial solutions and being able to reduce to those)
Dynamic programming
Organizing a solution as well as testing it for odd situations, e.g. if someone thinks L should be a number, are what I'd usually use to test out the idea in pseudo code before writing it up.
Design patterns can be a handy set of tools to use for specific cases like where an Adapter is needed or organizing things into a state or strategy solution.
Yes.. well TDD did't existed ( or was not that popular ) when I began. Would be TDD the way to go to pass from problem description to code?... Is not that a little bit advanced? I mean, when a "future" developer hardly understand what a programming language is, wouldn't it be counterproductive?
What about hamcrest the make the transition from algorithm to code.
I think there's a better way to state your problem.
Instead of defining it as 'a system,' define what is expected in terms of user inputs and outputs.
"On a window, a user should select an item from a list, and a box should show him how much it costs."
Then, you can give him some of the factors determining the costs, including sample items and what their costs should end up being.
(this is also very much a TDD-like idea)
Keep in mind, if you get 5% off then another 5% off, you don't get 10% off. Rather, you pay 95% of 95%, which is 90.25%, or 9.75% off. So, you shouldn't add the percentage.