Generic programming and high-performance libraries

Proceedings - International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium, IPDPS 2004 (Abstracts and CD-ROM)

Volumn 18, Issue , 2004, Pages 2767-2774

  Järvi, Jaakko ^a   Lumsdaine, Andrew ^a   Gregor, D P ^b   Kulkarni, M ^b   Musser, D R ^b   Schupp, S ^b,c  

^a INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b RENSSELAER POLYTECHNIC INSTITUTE   (United States)

^c CHALMERS UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DISTRIBUTED ALGORITHMS; GENERIC PROGRAMMING; HIGH-PERFORMANCE LIBRARIES; PARTIALLY-SYNCHRONOUS NETWORKS;

ALGEBRA; ALGORITHMS; C (PROGRAMMING LANGUAGE); COMPUTATIONAL COMPLEXITY; INTERFACES (COMPUTER); MATHEMATICAL MODELS; SEMANTICS;

COMPUTER PROGRAMMING;

EID: 12444298982     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (36)

1. K. Arkoudas. Denotational Proof Languages. PhD thesis, MIT, 2000.
2. M. H. Austern. Generic Programming and the STL Professional computing series. Addison-Wesley, 1999.
3. G. Baumgartner, M. Jansche, and K. Läufer. Half & Half: Multiple Dispatch and Retroactive Abstraction for Java. Technical Report OSU-CISRC-5/01-TR08, Ohio State University, 2002.
4. G. Baumgartner and V. F. Russo. Signatures: A language extension for improving type abstraction and subtype polymorphism in C++. Software-Practice and Experience, 25(8):863-889, August 1995.
5. P. Canning, W. Cook, W. Hill, W. Olthoff, and J. C. Mitchell. F-bounded polymorphism for object-oriented programming. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on functional programming languages and computer architecture, 1989.
6. L. Cardelli and P. Wegner. On understanding types, data abstraction, and polymorphism. ACM Computing Surveys, 17(4):471-522, 1985.
7. C. Chambers and the Cecil Group. The Cecil Language; Specification and Rationale, Version 3.1. University of Washington, Computer Science and Engineering, Dec. 2002. www.cs.washington.edu/research/projects/cecil/.
8. M. Clavel, P. Durán, S. Eker, P. Lincoln, N. Martí-Oliet, J. Meseguer, and J. F. Quesada. Maude: Specification and programming in rewriting logic. Theoretical Computer Science, 285:187-243, 2001.
9. P. Curtis. Constrained quantification in polymorphic type analysis. PhD thesis, Cornell University, Feb. 1990. www.parc.xerox.com/company/history/ publications/bw-ps-gz/csl90-1.ps.gz.
10. M. Day, R. Gruber, B. Liskov, and A. C. Myers. Subtypes vs. where clauses: Constraining parametric polymorphism. In OOPSLA, pages 156-158, 1995.
11. J. Eifrig, S. Smith, and V. Trifonov. Type inference for recursively constrained types and its application to OOP. In Proceedings of the 1995 Mathematical Foundations of Programming Semantics Conference, volume 1. Elsevier, 1995.
12. R. Garcia, J. Järvi, A. Lumsdaine, J. Siek, and J. Willcock. A comparative study of language support for generic programming. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM SIGPLAN conference on Object-oriented programing, systems, languages, and applications, pages 115-134. ACM Press, Oct. 2003.
13. D. Gregor. Static Analysis of Generic Component Composition. PhD thesis, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, forthcoming.
14. D. Gregor and S. Schupp. Making the usage of STL safe. In J. Gibbons and J. Jeuring, editors, Proceedings of the IFIP TC2 Working Conference on Generic Programming, pages 127-140, Boston, 2003. Kluwer.
15. U. Hölzle. Integrating independently-developed components in object-oriented languages. In ECOOP, volume 707 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pages 36-55. Springer, July 1993.
16. International Standardization Organization (ISO). ANSI/ISO Standard 14882, Programming Language C++. 1 rue de Varembé, Case postale 56, CH-1211 Genève 20, Switzerland, 1998.
17. J. Järvi, A. Lumsdaine, J. Siek, and J. Willcock. An analysis of constrained polymorphism for generic programming. In K. Davis and J. Striegnitz, editors, Multiparadigm Programming in Object-Oriented Languages Workshop (MPOOL) at OOPSLA, Anaheim, CA, Oct. 2003.
18. R. D. Jenks and R. S. Sutor. AXIOM: The Scientific Computation System. Springer Verlag, New York, 1992.
19. M. P. Jones. Qualified Types: Theory and Practice. Distinguished Dissertations in Computer Science, Cambridge University Press, 1994.
20. S. P. Jones, M. Jones, and E. Meijer. Type classes: an exploration of the design space. In Haskell Workshop, June 1997.
21. D. Kapur and D. Musser. Tecton: a framework for specifying and verifying generic system components. Technical Report RPI-92-20, Department of Computer Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, New York 12180, July 1992.
22. A. Kershenbaum, D. Musser, and A. Stepanov. Higher order imperative programming. Technical Report 88-10, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, 1988.
23. M. Kulkarni and D. R. Musser. Concept taxonomy for distributed algorithms, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~kulkam/concepts/pagedir/concindex.html.
24. K. Läufer, G. Baumgartner, and V. F. Russo. Safe structural conformance for Java. Computer Journal, 43(6):469-481, 2001.
25. X. S. Li, J. W. Demmel, D. H. Bailey, G. Henry, Y. Hida, J. Iskandar, W. Kahan, S. Y. Kang, A. Kapur, M. C. Martin, B. J. Thompson, T. Tung, and D. J. Yoo, Design, implementation and testing of extended and mixed precision BLAS. ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, 28(2): 152-205, June 2002.
26. B. Liskov, A. Snyder, R. Atkinson, and C. Schaffert. Abstraction mechanisms in CLU. Communications of the ACM, 20(8):564-576, 1977.
27. D. R. Musser. Algorithm concepts, http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~musser/gp/ algorithm-concepts, 2003.
28. SGI. Standard Template Library Programmer's Guide. http://www.sgi.com/ tech/stl/, 1997.
29. J. Siek. Boost Concept Check Library. Boost, 2000. http://www.boost.org/ libs/concept-check/.
30. J. Siek, L.-Q. Lee, and A. Lumsdaine. The Boost Graph Library: User Guide and Reference Manual. Addison-Wesley, 2002.
31. J. Siek and A. Lumsdaine. Concept checking: Binding parametric polymorphism in C++. In First Workshop on C++ Template Programming, October 2000.
32. B. Stroustrup. Concepts - a more abstract complement to type checking. Technical Report N1510=03-0093, ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology, Subcommittee SC 22, Programming Language C++, Oct. 2003. http://anubis.dkuug.dk/ jtc1/sc22/wg21.
33. B. Stroustrup and G. D. Reis. Concepts - design choices for template argument checking. Technical Report N1522=03-0105, ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology, Subcommittee SC 22, Programming Language C++, Oct. 2003. http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21.
34. B. Stroustrup and G. D. Reis. Concepts - syntax and composition. Technical Report N1536=03-0119, ISO/IEC JTC 1, Information Technology, Subcommittee SC 22, Programming Language C++, Oct. 2003. http://anubis.dkuug.dk/ jtc1/sc22/wg21.
35. United States Department of Defense. The Programming Language Ada: Reference Manual, ANSI/MIL-STD-1815A-1983 edition, February 1983.
36. P. Wadler and S. Blott. How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad-hoc. In ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pages 60-76. ACM, Jan. 1989.