On Growth and Software

Carlo Pescio @CarloPescio http://physicsofsoftware.com
Carlo Pescio
On Growth and Software
(or: applying some Physics of Software)

Inspired by a classic

Form as a Diagram of Forces

Form as a Recipe for Reaction
My own little step – don’t blame D’Arcy 
Material and shape encode reactions to “forces”

Form as a Recipe for Growth

Good ol’ book
+ - U
U

The ring binder
U
D
D
U
U
C
C

Growth Model

[Mis]Aligned Growth Model
(ideal) growth in
decision space
(actual) growth in
artifact space

“Growth” in computing
Extensibility Scalability
C/D features in code C/D run-time load
Code as artifacts Run-time behavior
C/D feature -> C/D load ->
C/D artifact C/D machines / CPU

Extensibility?

Symmetry in Growth [model]
Create feature
Delete feature
decision space
Create artifacts
Delete artifacts
artifact space

Why bother???
- Product families
- Plug-in architectures, 3rd party modules
- Modular understanding
- “zero impact” evolution

In practice?
A simple, specific problem
with a specific growth model.
Lessons here apply to similar growth models.
Not everything will / should follow this model.
The final shape is not universal
the method of investigation kinda is

Easy

Some physics required 

Vector drawing for dummies

Growth Model
- New shape types will come over time
- New behaviors will come over time
- Behaviors can be composed out of a fixed core
- That entire menu only requires {bounding box, move}
I’m dealing only with geometry right now

Context
We have an open, discrete set of “concepts”
{ Square, Triangle, Circle, … }
It’s open and so will grow by addition.
T3
T2
T1
+
+
T = { Ti }

In code?
How do we mirror in code?
• N types: OK
• N classes: OK
• N objects / prototypes: OK
• through closures / records of functions: ok as well
• Case classes: Maybe
• 1 sum type: NO
+
T = { Ti }

N trivial classes (Scala)
class Point( var x : Float,
var y : Float ) {}
class Box( var topLeft : Point,
var bottomRight : Point ) {}
class Circle( var center : Point,
var radius : Float ) {}
class Square( var topLeft : Point,
var side : Float ) {}
+

1 sum type (Haskell): nope
type Point = (Float,Float)
type Radius = Float
type Side = Float
data Shape =
Circle Point Radius |
Square Point Side
+ U

Context
We have a closed set of “core behaviors”
{ BoundingBox, Move, Scale, Rotate, Mirror }
^
H = { Hi }H

Context
“Core behaviors” depends on concepts.
More precisely: when we create/delete a concept,
we create/delete its implementation of core
behaviors.
^
Ti
C/D > HTi
T3
T2
T1
+
HT3
HT2
HT1
+

In code?
How do we mirror
• Member functions (class, objects): ok
• Functions (+ optional overloading): ok
• 1 function per behavior + pattern matching: NO
• That removes case classes from the table
^
Ti
C/D > HTi

Case classes (Scala): nope
abstract class Shape
case class Circle(center:Point, radius:Float) extends Shape
case class Square(topLeft:Point, side:Float) extends Shape
+
U
object moveTool {
def move( sh : Shape, newCenter : Point ) : Shape = {
sh match {
case Circle(center, radius) =>
new Circle( newCenter, radius);
case Square( topLeft, side) =>
new Square(Point(topLeft.x-side/2,
topLeft.y-side/2), side);
}
}
}

Context
We can:
a) create instances of those concepts and keep
them available for selection
b) select some of those instances (mixed
concepts) from a bounding box
c) apply composite behaviors to those (mixed)
instances

Context
a) We want to create instances and
keep them “available” for selection
In code:
• A single collection: OK
• A collection for each type: OK
A collection for each type is ok, as we still transfer
creation (of concept) into creation (of a new list).

Context
b) We want to select a (mixed) subset by
dragging a selection box.
So we need a selection function looping over all
the available shapes and checking their bounding
boxes (BB is a “core behavior” for shapes).

selection
box
f
selection
1 collection per type won’t work anymore
+
+
U
Same reasoning applies
to any of the composite
behaviors
shapes
selected
shapes

Context
We have an open set of “composite behaviors”
+
B = { Bi }
e.g.
{ align left, distribute horizontally, flip vertical}
They operate on collections of concepts
(instances).
^
Bi ≡ ·(H)

Context
+
T = { Ti }
*
+
B = { Bi }
^ +
(HTi)
·
C/D
Two problems with Bi here:
1) Works on a set of shapes
(same as selection)
2) Composed from a set of
type-dependent core
behaviors (same as
selection w/ BB)

A single collection of shapes
That would require either:
• A dynamic language
• mixing types is natural
• A way to form a placeholder type as substitute
for the individual types:
• Base type + subtypes
• Base class / interface + derived classes
• [objects as] Records of closures
• Existential types / Abstract types

Classes in Scala (easy)
abstract class Shape {
def explain() : String;
def boundingBox() : Box;
def moveCenter(newCenter:Point) :
Shape;
}

class Circle(private var center: Point,
private var radius: Float)
extends Shape {
def explain(): String =
{ "circle " + center.x + " " +
center.y + " " + radius; }
def boundingBox(): Box = { new Box(
Point(center.x-radius, center.y-radius),
Point(center.x+radius, center.y+radius)
); }
def moveCenter(newCenter: Point): Shape =
{ new Circle(newCenter, radius); }
}

class Square(private var topLeft: Point,
private var side: Float)
extends Shape {
def explain(): String =
{ "square " + topLeft.x + " " +
topLeft.y + " " + side; }
def boundingBox(): Box = { new Box(
topLeft,
Point(topLeft.x+side, topLeft.y+side)); }
def moveCenter(newCenter: Point): Shape =
{ new Square(Point(topLeft.x-side/2,
topLeft.y-side/2), side); }
}

object MainObject {
def main(args: Array[String]): Unit = {
val c1 = new Circle( Point(1,1), 4 ) ;
val s1 = new Square( Point(0,0), 4 ) ;
val sh : List[Shape] = List( c1, s1 );
var d : String = sh.map( s =>
s.moveCenter(Point(5,5)).explain()
).reduce((s1,s2) => s1 + " ; " + s2) ;
println( d ) ;
}
}

Records of Closures (Haskell)
type Box = (Point,Point)
data Shape = Shape {
explain :: String,
boundingBox :: Box,
moveCenter :: Point -> Shape
}

circle :: Point -> Float -> Shape
circle (x,y) r =
Shape explain boundingBox moveCenter
where
explain = "circle " ++ show x ++ " "
++ show y ++ " " ++ show r
boundingBox = ( (x-r, y-r),
(x+r, y+r) )
moveCenter (x1,y1) = circle (x1, y1) r

square :: Point -> Float -> Shape
square (t,l) s =
Shape explain boundingBox moveCenter
where
explain = "square " ++ show t ++ " "
++ show l ++ " " ++ show s
boundingBox = ( (t, l), (t+s, l+s) )
moveCenter (x1,y1) =
square (x1-s/2, y1-s/2) s

main = do
let c1 = circle (1,1) 3
let s1 = square (1,1) 3
let sh = [ c1, s1 ]
putStrLn
(concat ( map (s ->
(explain (moveCenter s (5,5)))
++ " ; ") sh ) )

Existential type (Haskell)
type Box = (Point,Point)
class ShapeTC a where
explain :: a -> String
boundingBox :: a -> Box
moveCenter :: a -> Point -> Shape
data Shape = forall a. ShapeTC a => Shape a
instance ShapeTC Shape where
explain (Shape shape) = explain shape
boundingBox (Shape shape) = boundingBox shape
moveCenter (Shape shape) = moveCenter shape

data Circle = Circle Point Float
instance ShapeTC Circle where
explain (Circle (x,y) r ) =
"circle " ++ show x ++ " " ++ show y ++
" " ++ show r
boundingBox (Circle (x,y) r) =
( (x-r, y-r), (x+r, y+r) )
moveCenter (Circle (x,y) r) (x1,y1) =
circle (x1, y1) r
circle :: Point -> Float -> Shape
circle (x,y) r = Shape (Circle (x,y) r)

data Square = Square Point Float
instance ShapeTC Square where
explain (Square (t,l) s) =
"square " ++ show t ++ " " ++ show l ++
" " ++ show s
boundingBox (Square (t,l) s) =
( (t, l), (t+s, l+s) )
moveCenter (Square (t,l) s) (x1,y1) =
square (x1-s/2, y1-s/2) s
square :: Point -> Float -> Shape
square (t,l) s = Shape (Square (t,l) s)

main = do
let c1 = circle (2,2) 3
let s1 = square (2,2) 3
let sh = [ c1, s1 ]
putStrLn
(concat ( map (s ->
(explain (moveCenter s (6,6)))
++ " ; ") sh ) )

“misaligned” growth model
B3
B2
B1
+
T3
T2
T1
+
HT3
HT2
HT1
+
UU

(madness)
B3
B2
B1
+
T3
T2
T1
+
HT3
HT2
HT1
+

OK 
H
B3
B2
B1
+
T
T3
T2
T1
+
HT3
HT2
HT1
+

Work in progress
^
Ha = { Hi }
+
T = { Ti }
*
+
B = { Bi }
^ +
HTi
·
C/D
^
Ta
+
T = { Ti }
*
+
B = { Bi }
^ +
(HTi)
·
C/D

Every type has identity (to keep it simple: name)
F knows identities in => F unstable
So:
- F should not know identities in
- F needs to operate on values of those types.
=> F must be isolated from type identity.
Identity and Isolation
+
T
+
T

Common techniques for isolation:
- Add a new “abstract type” Ta, make every Ti an
instance or subtype of Ta
- Requires late binding as F will only know Ta
- Relationship between Ti and Ta can be implicit
(structural conformance)
- Add a new concrete type Tc exposing only
functions, and bind every instance of Ti to an
instance of Tc
- That’s again providing late binding as F won’t know
the identity of the functions it’s calling
Isolation Techniques

structures vs paradigms

OO
SUCKS!

Get your trick question ready
1. The next time someone shows you a decent use
for OO-like polymorphism & encapsulation, what
can you say?
what about serialization in multiple formats?

Remember this?

Elastic yet bent !?

We only have geometry so far
I want rendering (new core behaviors!)
I may want only geometry
I may want only rendering
I may want both
=> Geometry and Rendering in distinct artifacts
Breaking the growth model

Growing and Breaking

partial class Circle
{
private readonly Point center;
private readonly double radius;
public Circle( Point center, double radius )
{
this.center = center;
this.radius = radius;
}
}
interface Shape
{
Shape Move(Point newCenter);
}
partial class Circle : Shape
{
public Shape Move(Point newCenter)
{
return new Circle(newCenter, radius);
}
}
interface Drawing
{
void Render();
}
partial class Circle : Drawing
{
public void Render()
{
Console.WriteLine(
"I'm a Circle with radius " +
radius.ToString());
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Shape c = new Circle(new Point(10, 10), 5);
Drawing d = c as Drawing;
d.Render();
}
constraint
Shape => Drawing

“Design Process”
I didn’t use
- Design principles
- Patterns
- Tests
- Religion
I only aimed for symmetry
- Features growth model
- Artifacts growth model
Break a symmetry
to get a symmetry 

…Monads 
Or polymorphism
Or existential types
Or type system constraints
Or many things yet to be invented
Just by understanding forces 
You may have invented…

Get in touch
@CarloPescio
carlo.pescio@gmail.com
http://physicsofsoftware.com
/forum

On Growth and Software

More Related Content

What's hot

Viewers also liked

Similar to On Growth and Software

Recently uploaded

On Growth and Software