Hard Core Denotational Semantics

Some of the readers of the Lambda blog were discussing my earlier throwaway line about Waldemar Horwat:

The august Waldemar Horwat — who was at one time the lead Javascript developer at AOL-Time-Warner-Netscape — once told me that he considered Javascript to be just another syntax for Common Lisp. I’m pretty sure he was being serious.

One user commented:

Mozilla’s CVS tree still contains the original implementation of Javascript… written in Common Lisp.

I can’t look at the Mozilla sources for legal reasons, so I can’t say for sure.  However, if you look at the drafts of the ECMAScript 4 specification that Waldemar was writing when he worked at Netscape, you’ll see that he uses this denotational semantics metalanguage to describe the operation of the ECMAScript language.  (This stands in marked contrast to the vague operational semantics used for the same purpose in the ECMAScript 1, 2 and 3 specifications.)

I vaguely recall that Waldemar had built a reference implementation of ECMAScript 4 in his metalanguage, and an implementation of the metalanguage in Common Lisp.  (Like I said, that guy is hard core.)  I hypothesize that this is the thing that the Lambda reader was talking about.  If someone could confirm or deny my hypothesis for me, I’d be interested to know.  It is unfortunate that I’m unable to look at this stuff, as I’m sure it would be fascinating.


UPDATE: This article makes a distinction between denotational semantics and operational semantics, and I could have taken the opportunity when it was originally published to discuss the difference in more detail.

Briefly: both are techniques for describing the semantics of a programming language. Denotational semantics is a more formal, mathematical approach where we associate programming language elements with mathematical objects, and then combinations of programming elements must be compositions of those objects.

Operational semantics is a more “algorithmic” approach where you describe what operations a virtual machine that implements the language would take. The original ECMAScript specifications were written as operational semantics. The ECMAScript 4 spec famously never shipped, and E5 went back to operational semantics.

The C# specification was deliberately written to mostly use neither technique; there are a few places where an operational approach is used, but the goal was to not have any “higher math” in the C# spec. It’s written in more or less plain English, and does not even carefully define important words such as “type”.

 

Advertisements

2 thoughts on “Hard Core Denotational Semantics

  1. [quote]
    I can’t look at the mozilla sources for legal reasons
    [/quote]

    IMO, this is one of my biggest issues with copyright (of any kind): it is impossible to prove the origin of something, so you end up either risking getting sued or not being able to view various things (and you might still get sued). This is why I publish my code under the Unlicence and everything else under CC0. Enforcing a more restrictive licence would be a pain. And I don’t care what people use my work for!

  2. Pingback: Porting old posts, part 1 | Fabulous adventures in coding

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s