Classical coordination mechanisms in the chemical model

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511770524.003

2 - Classical coordination mechanisms in the chemical model

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 August 2010

Jean-Pierre Banâtre ,

Pascal Fradet and

Yann Radenac

Edited by

Yves Bertot ,

Gérard Huet ,

Jean-Jacques Lévy and

Gordon Plotkin

Show author details

Jean-Pierre Banâtre: Affiliation:
INRIA/IRISA, Université de Rennes 1
Pascal Fradet: Affiliation:
INRIA Rhône-Alpes
Yann Radenac: Affiliation:
INRIA/IRISA, Université de Rennes 1
Yves Bertot: Affiliation:
INRIA-Sophia Antipolis, France
Gérard Huet: Affiliation:
Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), Rocquencourt
Jean-Jacques Lévy: Affiliation:
Institut National de Recherche en Informatique et en Automatique (INRIA), Rocquencourt
Gordon Plotkin: Affiliation:
University of Edinburgh

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In memory of Gilles Kahn

The essence of this paper stems from discussions that the first author (Jean-Pierre Banâtre) had with Gilles on topics related with programming in general and chemical programming in particular. Gilles liked the ideas behind the Gamma model and the closely related Berry and Boudol's CHAM as the basic principles are so simple and elegant. The last opportunity Jean-Pierre had to speak about these ideas to Gilles, was when he presented the LNCS volume devoted to the Unconventional Programming Paradigms workshop. The 10 minutes appointment (at that time, he was CEO of INRIA) lasted a long time. Gilles was fine and in good humour, as often, and he was clearly happy to talk about a subject he loved. He spoke a lot about λ-calculus, the reduction principle, the β-reduction… a really great souvenir!

Abstract

Originally, the chemical model of computation has been proposed as a simple and elegant parallel programming paradigm. Data is seen as “molecules” and computation as “chemical reactions”: if some molecules satisfy a predefined reaction condition, they are replaced by the “product” of the reaction. When no reaction is possible, a normal form is reached and the program terminates. In this paper, we describe classical coordination mechanisms and parallel programming models in the chemical setting. All these examples put forward the simplicity and expressivity of the chemical paradigm.

Information

Type: Chapter
Information: From Semantics to Computer Science
Essays in Honour of Gilles Kahn
, pp. 29 - 50

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770524.003 [Opens in a new window]

Publisher: Cambridge University Press

Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

[1]J.-P., Banâtre, P., Fradet, J.-L., Giavitto and O., Michel (eds). Unconventional Programming Paradigms (UPP'04), volume 3566 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Revised Selected and Invited Papers of the International Workshop, 2005. Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar

[2]J.-P., Banâtre, P., Fradet and D., Le Métayer. Gamma and the chemical reaction model: Fifteen years after. In Multiset Processing, volume 2235 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, pp. 17–44. Springer-Verlag, 2001.Google Scholar

[3]J.-P., Banâtre, P., Fradet and Y., Radenac. Principles of chemical programming. In S., Abdennadher and C., Ringeissen (eds), Proceedings of the 5th International Workshop on Rule-Based Programming (RULE 2004), volume 124 of ENTCS, pp. 133–147. Elsevier, June 2005.Google Scholar

[4]J.-P., Banâtre, P., Fradet and Y., Radenac. Generalised multisets for chemical programming. Mathematical Structures in Computer Science, 16(4):557–580, 2006.Google Scholar

[5]J.-P., Banâtre, P., Fradet and Y., Radenac. Programming self-organizing systems with the higher-order chemical language. International Journal of Unconventional Computing, 2007.Google Scholar

[6]J.-P., Banâtre and D., Le Métayer. Programming by multiset transformation. Communications of the ACM (CACM), 36(1):98–111, 1993.Google Scholar

[7]G., Berry and G., Boudol. The chemical abstract machine. Theoretical Computer Science, 96:217–248, 1992.Google Scholar

[8]N., Carriero and D., Gelernter. Linda in Context. Communications of the ACM, 32(4):444–458, 1989.Google Scholar

[9]K., Mani Chandy and J., Misra. Parallel Program Design : A Foundation. Addison-Wesley, 1988.Google Scholar

[10]C., Fournet and G., Gonthier. The reflexive CHAM and the join-calculus. In Proceedings of the 23rd ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, pp. 372–385. ACM Press, 1996.Google Scholar

[11]C. A. R., Hoare. Communicating sequential processes. Communications of the ACM, 21(8):666–677, 1978.Google Scholar

[12]G., Kahn. The semantics of a simple language for parallel programming. Information Processing, 74:471–475, 1974.Google Scholar

[13]R., Milner. A Calculus of Communicating Systems, volume 92 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1980.Google Scholar

[14]T., Murata. Petri nets: Properties, analysis and applications. Proceedings of the IEEE, 77(4):541–580, 1989.Google Scholar

[15]H. R., Barradas. Une approche à la dérivation formelle de systèmes en Gamma. PhD thesis, Université de Rennes 1, France, 1993.

Accessibility standard: Unknown

Accessibility compliance for the PDF of this book is currently unknown and may be updated in the future.