Abstract A sound gradual type system ensures that untyped components of a program can never break the guarantees of statically typed components. This assurance relies on runtime checks, which in turn impose performance overhead in proportion to the frequency and nature of interaction between typed and untyped components. The literature on gradual typing lacks rigorous descriptions of methods for measuring the performance of gradual type systems. This gap has consequences for the implementors of gradual type systems and developers who use such systems. Without systematic evaluation of mixed-typed programs, implementors cannot precisely determine how improvements to a gradual type system affect performance. Developers cannot predict whether adding types to part of a program will significantly degrade (or improve) its performance. This paper presents the first method for evaluating the performance of sound gradual type systems. The method quantifies both the absolute performance of a gradual type system and the relative performance of two implementations of the same gradual type system. To validate the method, the paper reports on its application to 20 programs and 3 implementations of Typed Racket.

Programmers have come to embrace dynamically-typed languages for prototyping and delivering large and complex systems. When it comes to maintaining and evolving these systems, the lack of explicit static typing becomes a bottleneck. In response, researchers have explored the idea of gradually-typed programming languages which allow the incremental addition of type annotations to software written in one of these untyped languages. Some of these new, hybrid languages insert run-time checks at the boundary between typed and untyped code to establish type soundness for the overall system. With sound gradual typing, programmers can rely on the language implementation to provide meaningful error messages when type invariants are violated. While most research on sound gradual typing remains theoretical, the few emerging implementations suffer from performance overheads due to these checks. None of the publications on this topic comes with a comprehensive performance evaluation. Worse, a few report disastrous numbers. In response, this paper proposes a method for evaluating the performance of gradually-typed programming languages. The method hinges on exploring the space of partial conversions from untyped to typed. For each benchmark, the performance of the different versions is reported in a synthetic metric that associates runtime overhead to conversion effort. The paper reports on the results of applying the method to Typed Racket, a mature implementation of sound gradual typing, using a suite of real-world programs of various sizes and complexities. Based on these results the paper concludes that, given the current state of implementation technologies, sound gradual typing faces significant challenges. Conversely, it raises the question of how implementations could reduce the overheads associated with soundness and how tools could be used to steer programmers clear from pathological cases.

Over the past 20 years, programmers have embraced dynamically-typed programming languages. By now, they have also come to realize that programs in these languages lack reliable type information for software engineering purposes. Gradual typing addresses this problem; it empowers programmers to annotate an existing system with sound type information on a piecemeal basis. This paper presents an implementation of a gradual type system for a full-featured class-based language as well as a novel performance evaluation framework for gradual typing.

First-class classes enable programmers to abstract over patterns in the class hierarchy and to experiment with new forms of object-oriented programming such as mixins and traits. This increase in expressive power calls for tools to control the complexity of the software architecture. A contract system is one possible tool that has seen much use in object-oriented programming languages, but existing contract systems cannot cope with first-class classes. On the one hand, the typical contract language deals only with plain values such as numbers, while classes are higher-order values. On the other hand, contract specifications are usually contained within class definitions, while classes as values call for a separate contract language. This article presents the design and implementation of a contract system for first-class classes as well as a two-pronged evaluation. The first one states and proves a “blame correctness” theorem for a model of our language. The theorem shows that when the contract system assigns blame to a component for a contract violation, the component is indeed responsible for providing the nonconforming value. The second part, consisting of benchmarks and case studies, demonstrates the need for the rich contract language and validates that our implementation approach is performant with respect to time.

Dynamic type-checking and object-oriented programming often go hand-in-hand; scripting languages such as Python, Ruby, and JavaScript all embrace object-oriented (OO) programming. When scripts written in such languages grow and evolve into large programs, the lack of a static type discipline reduces maintainability. A programmer may thus wish to migrate parts of such scripts to a sister language with a static type system. Unfortunately, existing type systems neither support the flexible OO composition mechanisms found in scripting languages nor accommodate sound interoperation with untyped code. In this paper, we present the design of a gradual typing system that supports sound interaction between statically- and dynamically-typed units of class-based code. The type system uses row polymorphism for classes and thus supports mixin-based OO composition. To protect migration of mixins from typed to untyped components, the system employs a novel form of contracts that partially seal classes. The design comes with a theorem that guarantees the soundness of the type system even in the presence of untyped components.