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.

The promise of gradual typing is that programmers should get the best of both worlds: the static guarantees of static types, and the dynamic flexibility of untyped programming. This is an enticing benefit, but one that, in practice, may carry significant costs. Significant enough, in fact, to threaten the very practicality of gradual typing; slowdowns as high as 120x are reported as arising from gradual typing. If one examines these results closely, though, it becomes clear that the costs of gradual typing are not evenly distributed. Indeed, while mixing typed and untyped code almost invariably carries non-trivial costs, many truly deal-breaking slowdowns exhibit pathological performance. Unfortunately, the very presence of these pathological cases---and therefore the possibility of hitting them during development---makes gradual typing a risky proposition in any setting that even remotely cares about performance. This work attacks one source of large overheads in these pathological cases: an accumulation of contract wrappers that perform redundant checks. The work introduces a novel strategy for contract checking---collapsible contracts---which eliminates this redundancy for function and vector contracts and drastically reduces the overhead of contract wrappers. We implemented this checking strategy as part of the Racket contract system, which is used in the Typed Racket gradual typing system. Our experiments show that our strategy successfully brings a class of pathological cases in line with normal cases, while not introducing an undue overhead to any of the other cases. Our results also show that the performance of gradual typing in Racket remains prohibitive for many programs, but that collapsible contracts are one essential ingredient in reducing the cost of gradual typing.

Domain-specific languages are the ultimate abstraction, dixit Paul Hudak. But what abstraction should we use to build such ultimate abstractions? What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander: a language, of course! Racket is the ultimate abstraction-abstraction, a platform for quickly and easily building new ultimate abstractions. This pearl demonstrates Racket's power by taking a leisurely walk through the implementation of a DSL for Lindenmayer systems, the computational model par excellence of theoretical botany.

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.