$\def\aal{\alpha{\raise 1pt\hbox{\hskip -4pt{\char'47}}}} M\epsilon\tau\alpha\beta\acute{\alpha}\lambda\lambda o \nu\ ἀ\nu\alpha\pi\alpha\acute{\upsilon}\epsilon\tau\alpha\iota$
(Even while it changes, it stands still.)Heraclitus
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.Alphonse Karr
The preceding chapters introduced the basic elements from which
programs are made. We saw how primitive
procedures
functions
and primitive data are combined to construct compound entities, and we
learned that abstraction is vital in helping us to cope with the complexity
of large systems. But these tools are not sufficient for designing
programs. Effective program synthesis also requires organizational
principles that can guide us in formulating the overall design of a
program. In particular, we need strategies to help us structure large
systems so that they will be
modular, that is, so that they can
be divided naturally
into coherent parts that can be
separately developed and maintained.
One powerful design strategy, which is particularly appropriate to the construction of programs for modeling physical systems, is to base the structure of our programs on the structure of the system being modeled. For each object in the system, we construct a corresponding computational object. For each system action, we define a symbolic operation in our computational model. Our hope in using this strategy is that extending the model to accommodate new objects or new actions will require no strategic changes to the program, only the addition of the new symbolic analogs of those objects or actions. If we have been successful in our system organization, then to add a new feature or debug an old one we will have to work on only a localized part of the system.
To a large extent, then, the way we organize a large program is
dictated by our perception of the system to be modeled. In this
chapter we will investigate two prominent organizational strategies
arising from two rather different world views
of the
structure of systems. The first organizational strategy concentrates on
objects, viewing a large system as a collection of distinct objects
whose behaviors may change over time. An alternative organizational
strategy concentrates on the
streams of information that flow in
the system, much as an electrical engineer views a signal-processing
system.
Both the object-based approach and the stream-processing approach raise significant linguistic issues in programming. With objects, we must be concerned with how a computational object can change and yet maintain its identity. This will force us to abandon our old substitution model of computation (section 1.1.5) in favor of a more mechanistic but less theoretically tractable environment model of computation. The difficulties of dealing with objects, change, and identity are a fundamental consequence of the need to grapple with time in our computational models. These difficulties become even greater when we allow the possibility of concurrent execution of programs. The stream approach can be most fully exploited when we decouple simulated time in our model from the order of the events that take place in the computer during evaluation. We will accomplish this using a technique known as delayed evaluation.