197 7 ACM Turing Award Lecture

The 1977 A C M Turing Award was presented to John Backus
at the A C M Annual Conference in Seattle, October 17. In introducing the recipient, Jean E. Sammet, Chairman of the Awards
Committee, made the following comments and read a portion of
the final citation. The full announcement is in the September
1977 issue of Communications, page 681.
"Probably there is nobody in the room who has not heard of
Fortran and most of you have probably used it at least once, or at
least looked over the shoulder of someone who was writing a For.
tran program. There are probably almost as many people who
have heard the letters BNF but don't necessarily know what they
stand for. Well, the B is for Backus, and the other letters are
explained in the formal citation. These two contributions, in my
opinion, are among the half dozen most important technical
contributions to the computer field and both were made by John
Backus (which in the Fortran case also involved some colleagues). It is for these contributions that he is receiving this
year's Turing award.
The short form of his citation is for 'profound, influential,
and lasting contributions to the design of practical high-level
programming systems, notably through his work on Fortran, and
for seminal publication of formal procedures for the specifications of programming languages.'
The most significant part of the full citation is as follows:
' . . . Backus headed a small IBM group in New York City
during the early 1950s. The earliest product of this group's
efforts was a high-level language for scientific and technical corn-

putations called Fortran. This same group designed the first
system to translate Fortran programs into machine language.
They employed novel optimizing techniques to generate fast
machine-language programs. Many other compilers for the language were developed, first on IBM machines, and later on virtually every make of computer. Fortran was adopted as a U.S.
national standard in 1966.
During the latter part of the 1950s, Backus served on the
international committees which developed Algol 58 and a later
version, Algol 60. The language Algol, and its derivative compilers, received broad acceptance in Europe as a means for developing programs and as a formal means of publishing the
algorithms on which the programs are based.
In 1959, Backus presented a paper at the UNESCO conference in Paris on the syntax and semantics of a proposed international algebraic language. In this paper, he was the first to
employ a formal technique for specifying the syntax of programming languages. The formal notation became known as B N F standing for "Backus N o r m a l Form," or "Backus Naur F o r m " to
recognize the further contributions by Peter Naur of Denmark.
Thus, Backus has contributed strongly both to the pragmatic
world of problem-solving on computers and to the theoretical
world existing at the interface between artificial languages and
computational linguistics. Fortran remains one of the most
widely used programming languages in the world. Almost all
programming languages are now described with some type of
formal syntactic definition.' "

Can Programming Be Liberated from the von
Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its
Algebra of Programs
John Backus
IBM Research Laboratory, San Jose

General permission to make fair use in teaching or research of all
or part of this material is granted to individual readers and to nonprofit
libraries acting for them provided that ACM's copyright notice is given
and that reference is made to the publication, to its date of issue, and
to the fact that reprinting privileges were granted by permission of the
Association for Computing Machinery. To otherwise reprint a figure,
table, other substantial excerpt, or the entire work requires specific
permission as does republication, or systematic or multiple reproduction.
Author's address: 91 Saint Germain Ave., San Francisco, CA
94114.
© 1978 ACM 0001-0782/78/0800-0613 $00.75
613

Conventional programming languages are growing
ever more enormous, but not stronger. Inherent defects
at the most basic level cause them to be both fat and
weak: their primitive word-at-a-time style of programming inherited from their common ancestor--the von
Neumann computer, their close coupling of semantics to
state transitions, their division of programming into a
world of expressions and a world of statements, their
inability to effectively use powerful combining forms for
building new programs from existing ones, and their lack
of useful mathematical properties for reasoning about
programs.
An alternative functional style of programming is
founded on the use of combining forms for creating
programs. Functional programs deal with structured
data, are often nonrepetitive and nonrecursive, are hierarchically constructed, do not name their arguments, and
do not require the complex machinery of procedure
declarations to become generally applicable. Combining
forms can use high level programs to build still higher
level ones in a style not possible in conventional languages.
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 i
Number 8

Associated with the functional style of programming
is an algebra of programs whose variables range over
programs and whose operations are combining forms.
This algebra can be used to transform programs and to
solve equations whose "unknowns" are programs in much
the same way one transforms equations in high school
algebra. These transformations are given by algebraic
laws and are carried out in the same language in which
programs are written. Combining forms are chosen not
only for their programming power but also for the power
of their associated algebraic laws. General theorems of
the algebra give the detailed behavior and termination
conditions for large classes of programs.
A new class of computing systems uses the functional
programming style both in its programming language and
in its state transition rules. Unlike von Neumann languages, these systems have semantics loosely coupled to
states--only one state transition occurs per major computation.
Key Words and Phrases: functional programming,
algebra of programs, combining forms, functional forms,
programming languages, von Neumann computers, yon
Neumann languages, models of computing systems, applicative computing systems, applicative state transition
systems, program transformation, program correctness,
program termination, metacomposition
CR Categories: 4.20, 4.29, 5.20, 5.24, 5.26

Introduction

I deeply appreciate the honor of the ACM invitation
to give the 1977 Turing Lecture and to publish this
account of it with the details promised in the lecture.
Readers wishing to see a summary of this paper should
turn to Section 16, the last section.
1. Conventional Programming Languages: Fat and
Flabby

Programming languages appear to be in trouble.
Each successive language incorporates, with a little
cleaning up, all the features of its predecessors plus a few
more. Some languages have manuals exceeding 500
pages; others cram a complex description into shorter
manuals by using dense formalisms. The Department of
Defense has current plans for a committee-designed
language standard that could require a manual as long
as 1,000 pages. Each new language claims new and
fashionable features, such as strong typing or structured
control statements, but the plain fact is that few languages make programming sufficiently cheaper or more
reliable to justify the cost of producing and learning to
use them.
Since large increases in size bring only small increases
in power, smaller, more elegant languages such as Pascal
continue to be popular. But there is a desperate need for
a powerful methodology to help us think about pro614

grams, and no conventional language even begins to
meet that need. In fact, conventional languages create
unnecessary confusion in the way we think about programs.
For twenty years programming languages have been
steadily progressing toward their present condition of
obesity; as a result, the study and invention of programming languages has lost much of its excitement. Instead,
it is now the province of those who prefer to work with
thick compendia of details rather than wrestle with new
ideas. Discussions about programming languages often
resemble medieval debates about the number o f angels
that can dance on the head of a pin instead of exciting
contests between fundamentally differing concepts.
Many creative computer scientists have retreated
from inventing languages to inventing tools for describing them. Unfortunately, they have been largely content
to apply their elegant new tools to studying the warts
and moles of existing languages. After examining the
appalling type structure of conventional languages, using
the elegant tools developed by Dana Scott, it is surprising
that so many of us remain passively content with that
structure instead of energetically searching for new ones.
The purpose of this article is twofold; first, to suggest
that basic defects in the framework of conventional
languages make their expressive weakness and their
cancerous growth inevitable, and second, to suggest some
alternate avenues of exploration toward the design of
new kinds of languages.

2. Models of Computing Systems

Underlying every programming language is a model
of a computing system that its programs control. Some
models are pure abstractions, some are represented by
hardware, and others by compiling or interpretive programs. Before we examine conventional languages more
closely, it is useful to make a brief survey of existing
models as an introduction to the current universe of
alternatives. Existing models may be crudely classified
by the criteria outlined below.
2.1 Criteria for Models
2.1.1 Foundations. Is there an elegant and concise
mathematical description of the model? Is it useful in
proving helpful facts about the behavior of the model?
Or is the model so complex that its description is bulky
and of little mathematical use?
2.1.2 History sensitivity. Does the model include a
notion of storage, so that one program can save information that can affect the behavior of a later program?
That is, is the model history sensitive?
2.1.3 Type of semantics. Does a program successively
transform states (which are not programs) until a terminal state is reached (state-transition semantics)? Are
states simple or complex? Or can a "program" be successively reduced to simpler "programs" to yield a final
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

"normal form program," which is the result (reduction
semantics)?
2.1.4 Clarity and conceptual usefulness of programs.
•Are programs of the model clear expressions of a process
or computation? Do they embody concepts that help us
to formulate and reason about processes?

2.2 Classification of Models
Using the above criteria we can crudely characterize
three classes of models for computing systems--simple
operational models, applicative models, and von Neumann models.
2.2.1 Simple operational models. Examples: Turing
machines, various automata. Foundations: concise and
useful. History sensitivity: have storage, are history sensitive. Semantics: state transition with very simple states.
Program clarity: programs unclear and conceptually not
helpful.
2.2.2 Applicative models. Examples: Church's
lambda calculus [5], Curry's system of combinators [6],
pure Lisp [17], functional programming systems described in this paper. Foundations: concise and useful.
History sensitivity: no storage, not history sensitive. Semantics: reduction semantics, no states. Program clarity:
programs can be clear and conceptually useful.
2.2.3 Von Neumann models. Examples: von Neumann computers, conventional programming languages.
Foundations: complex, bulky, not useful. History sensitivity: have storage, are history sensitive. Semantics: state
transition with complex states. Program clarity: programs
can be moderately clear, are not very useful conceptually.
The above classification is admittedly crude and
debatable. Some recent models may not fit easily into
any of these categories. For example, the data-flow
languages developed by Arvind and Gostelow [1], Dennis [7], Kosinski [13], and others partly fit the class of
simple operational models, but their programs are clearer
than those of earlier models in the class and it is perhaps
possible to argue that some have reduction semantics. In
any event, this classification will serve as a crude map of
the territory to be discussed. We shall be concerned only
with applicative and von Neumann models.

3. Von Neumann Computers
In order to understand the problems of conventional
programming languages, we must first examine their
intellectual parent, the von Neumann computer. What is
a v o n Neumann computer? When von Neumann and
others conceived it over thirty years ago, it was an
elegant, practical, and unifying idea that simplified a
number of engineering and programming problems that
existed then. Although the conditions that produced its
architecture have changed radically, we nevertheless still
identify the notion of "computer" with this thirty year
old concept.
In its simplest form a v o n Neumann computer has
615

three parts: a central processing unit (or CPU), a store,
and a connecting tube that can transmit a single word
between the CPU and the store (and send an address to
the store). I propose to call this tube the yon Neumann
bottleneck. The task of a program is to change the
contents of the store in some major way; when one
considers that this task must be accomplished entirely by
pumping single words back and forth through the von
Neumann bottleneck, the reason for its name becomes
clear.
Ironically, a large part of the traffic in the bottleneck
is not useful data but merely names of data, as well as
operations and data used only to compute such names.
Before a word can be sent through the tube its address
must be in the CPU; hence it must either be sent through
the tube from the store or be generated by some CPU
operation. If the address is sent from the store, then its
address must either have been sent from the store or
generated in the CPU, and so on. If, on the other hand,
the address is generated in the CPU, it must be generated
either by a fixed rule (e.g., "add 1 to the program
counter") or by an instruction that was sent through the
tube, in which case its address must have been sent . . .
and so on.
Surely there must be a less primitive way of making
big changes in the store than by pushing vast numbers
of words back and forth through the von Neumann
bottleneck. Not only is this tube a literal bottleneck for
the data traffic of a problem, but, more importantly, it is
an intellectual bottleneck that has kept us tied to wordat-a-time thinking instead of encouraging us to think in
terms of the larger conceptual units of the task at hand.
Thus programming is basically planning and detailing
the enormous traffic of words through the von Neumann
bottleneck, and much of that traffic concerns not significant data itself but where to find it.

4. Von Neumann Languages
Conventional programming languages are basically
high level, complex versions of the von Neumann computer. Our thirty year old belief that there is only one
kind of computer is the basis of our belief that there is
only one kind of programming language, the conventional--von Neumann--language. The differences between Fortran and Algol 68, although considerable, are
less significant than the fact that both are based on the
programming style of the von Neumann computer. Although I refer to conventional languages as "von Neumann languages" to take note of their origin and style,
I do not, of course, blame the great mathematician for
their complexity. In fact, some might say that I bear
some responsibility for that problem.
Von Neumann programming languages use variables
to imitate the computer's storage cells; control statements
elaborate its jump and test instructions; and assignment
statements imitate its fetching, storing, and arithmetic.
Communications
of
the A C M

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

The assignment statement is the von Neumann bottleneck of programming languages and keeps us thinking
in word-at-a-time terms in much the same way the
computer's bottleneck does.
Consider a typical program; at its center are a number
of assignment statements containing some subscripted
variables. Each assignment statement produces a oneword result. The program must cause these statements to
be executed many times, while altering subscript values,
in order to make the desired overall change in the store,
since it must be done one word at a time. The programmer is thus concerned with the flow of words through
the assignment bottleneck as he designs the nest of
control statements to cause the necessary repetitions.
Moreover, the assignment statement splits programming into two worlds. The first world comprises the right
sides of assignment statements. This is an orderly world
of expressions, a world that has useful algebraic properties (except that those properties are often destroyed by
side effects). It is the world in which most useful computation takes place.
The second world of conventional programming languages is the world of statements. The primary statement
in that world is the assignment statement itself. All the
other statements of the language exist in order to make
it possible to perform a computation that must be based
on this primitive construct: the assignment statement.
This world of statements is a disorderly one, with few
useful mathematical properties. Structured programming
can be seen as a modest effort to introduce some order
into this chaotic world, but it accomplishes little in
attacking the fundamental problems created by the
word-at-a-time von Neumann style of programming,
with its primitive use of loops, subscripts, and branching
flow of control.
Our fixation on yon Neumann languages has continued the primacy of the von Neumann computer, and our
dependency on it has made non-von Neumann languages
uneconomical and has limited their development. The
absence of full scale, effective programming styles
founded on non-von Neumann principles has deprived
designers of an intellectual foundation for new computer
architectures. (For a brief discussion of that topic, see
Section 15.)
Applicative computing systems' lack of storage and
history sensitivity is the basic reason they have not
provided a foundation for computer design. Moreover,
most applicative systems employ the substitution operation of the lambda calculus as their basic operation. This
operation is one of virtually unlimited power, but its
complete and efficient realization presents great difficulties to the machine designer. Furthermore, in an effort
to introduce storage and to improve their efficiency on
von Neumann computers, applicative systems have
tended to become engulfed in a large von Neumann
system. For example, pure Lisp is often buried in large
extensions with many von Neumann features. The resuiting complex systems offer little guidance to the machine designer.
616

5. Comparison of von Neumann and Functional
Programs

To get a more detailed picture of some of the defects
of von Neumann languages, let us compare a conventional program for inner product with a functional one
written in a simple language to be detailed further on.
5.1 A von Neumann Program for Inner Product
c.-~-0
for i .~ I step 1 until n do

c .---c + ali]xbIi]
Several properties of this program are worth noting:
a) Its statements operate on an invisible "state" according to complex rules.
b) It is not hierarchical. Except for the right side of
the assignment statement, it does not construct complex
entities from simpler ones. (Larger programs, however,
often do.)
c) It is dynamic and repetitive. One must mentally
execute it to understand it.
d) It computes word-at-a-time by repetition (of the
assignment) and by modification (of variable i).
e) Part of the data, n, is in the program; thus it lacks
generality and works only for vectors of length n.
f) It names its arguments; it can only be used for
vectors a and b. To become general, it requires a procedure declaration. These involve complex issues (e.g., callby-name versus call-by-value).
g) Its "housekeeping" operations are represented by
symbols in scattered places (in the for statement and the
subscripts in the assignment). This makes it impossible
to consolidate housekeeping operations, the most common of all, into single, powerful, widely useful operators.
Thus in programming those operations one must always
start again at square one, writing "for i .--- . . . " and
"for j := . . . " followed by assignment statements sprinkled with i's and j's.
5.2 A Functional Program for Inner Product
Def Innerproduct
- (Insert +)o(ApplyToAll x)oTranspose

Or, in abbreviated form:
Def IP - (/+)o(ax)oTrans.

Composition (o), Insert (/), and ApplyToAll (a) are

functional forms that combine existing functions to form
new ones. Thus f o g is the function obtained by applying
first g and then fi and c~f is the function obtained by
a p p l y i n g f to every member of the argument. If we write
f : x for the result of applying f to the object x, then we
can explain each step in evaluating Innerproduct applied
to the pair of vectors <<1, 2, 3>, <6, 5, 4 > > as follows:
I P : < < i,2,3>, <6,5,4>> =
Definition of IP
~ (/+)o(ax)oTrans: < < 1,2,3>, <6,5,4>>
Effect of composition, o ~ (/+):((ax):(Trans:
<<1,2,3>, <6,5,4>>))
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

Applying Transpose
Effect of ApplyToAll, a
Applying ×
Effect of Insert, /
Applying +
Applying + again

(/+):((ax): <<1,6>, <2,5>, <3,4>>)
(/+): < x : <1,6>, x: <2,5>, x: <3,4>>
(/+): <6,10,12>
+: <6, +: <lO,12>>
+: <6,22>
28

Let us compare the properties of this program with
those of the von Neumann program.
a) It operates only on its arguments. There are no
hidden states or complex transition rules. There are only
two kinds of rules, one for applying a function to its
argument, the other for obtaining the function denoted
by a functional form such as composition, fog, or
ApplyToAll, af, when one knows the functions f and g,
the parameters of the forms.
b) It is hierarchical, being built from three simpler
functions (+, x, Trans) and three functional forms fog,
af, a n d / f .
c) It is static and nonrepetitive, in the sense that its
structure is helpful in understanding it without mentally
executing it. For example, if one understands the action
of the forms fog and af, and of the functions x and
Trans, then one understands the action of a x and of
(c~x)oTrans, and so on.
d) It operates on whole conceptual units, not words;
it has three steps; no step is repee, ted.
e) It incorporates no data; it is completely general; it
works for any pair of conformable vectors.
f) It does not name its arguments; it can be applied to
any pair of vectors without any procedure declaration or
complex substitution rules.
g) It employs housekeeping forms and functions that
are generally useful in many other programs; in fact,
only + and x are not concerned with housekeeping.
These forms and functions can combine with others to
create higher level housekeeping operators.
Section 14 sketches a kind of system designed to
make the above functional style of programming available in a history-sensitive system with a simple framework, but much work remains to be done before the
above applicative style can become the basis for elegant
and practical programming languages. For the present,
the above comparison exhibits a number of serious flaws
in yon Neumann programming languages and can serve
as a starting point in an effort to account for their present
fat and flabby condition.

6. Language Frameworks versus Changeable Parts
Let us distinguish two parts of a programming language. First, its framework which gives the overall rules
of the system, and second, its changeable parts, whose
existence is anticipated by the framework but whose
particular behavior is not specified by it. For example,
the for statement, and almost all other statements, are
part of Algol's framework but library functions and userdefined procedures are changeable parts. Thus the
framework of a language describes its fixed features and
617

provides a general environment for its changeable features.
Now suppose a language had a small framework
which could accommodate a great variety of powerful
features entirely as changeable parts. Then such a framework could support many different features and styles
without being changed itself. In contrast to this pleasant
possibility, von Neumann languages always seem to have
an immense framework and very limited changeable
parts. What causes this to happen? The answer concerns
two problems of von Neumann languages.
The first problem results from the von Neumann
style of word-at-a-time programming, which requires
that words flow back and forth to the state, just like the
flow through the von Neumann bottleneck. Thus a v o n
Neumann language must have a semantics closely coupled to the state, in which every detail of a computation
changes the state. The consequence of this semantics
closely coupled to states is that every detail of every
feature must be built into the state and its transition
rules.
Thus every feature of a v o n Neumann language must
be spelled out in stupefying detail in its framework.
Furthermore, many complex features are needed to prop
up the basically weak word-at-a-time style. The result is
the inevitable rigid and enormous framework of a v o n
Neumann language.

7. Changeable Parts and Combining Forms
The second problem of von Neumann languages is
that their changeable parts have so little expressive
power. Their gargantuan size is eloquent proof of this;
after all, if the designer knew that all those complicated
features, which he now builds into the framework, could
be added later on as changeable parts, he would not be
so eager to build them into the framework.
Perhaps the most important element in providing
powerful changeable parts in a language is the availability of combining forms that can be generally used to
build new procedures from old ones. Von Neumarm
languages provide only primitive combining forms, and
the von Neumann framework presents obstacles to their
full use.
One obstacle to the use of combining forms is the
split between the expression world and the statement
world in von Neumann languages. Functional forms
naturally belong to the world of expressions; but no
matter how powerful they are they can only build expressions that produce a one-word result. And it is in the
statement world that these one-word results must be
combined into the overall result. Combining single words
is not what we really should be thinking about, but it is
a large part of programming any task in von Neumann
languages. To help assemble the overall result from
single words these languages provide some primitive
combining forms in the statement world--the for, while,
and if-then-else statements--but the split between the
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

two worlds prevents the combining forms in either world
from attaining the full power they can achieve in an
undivided world.
A second obstacle to the use of combining forms in
von Neumann languages is their use of elaborate naming
conventions, which are further complicated by the substitution rules required in calling procedures. Each of
these requires a complex mechanism to be built into the
framework so that variables, subscripted variables,
pointers, file names, procedure names, call-by-value formal parameters, call-by-name formal parameters, and so
on, can all be properly interpreted. All these names,
conventions, and rules interfere with the use of simple
combining forms.

8. APL versus Word-at-a-Time Programming
Since I have said so much about word-at-a-time
programming, I must now say something about APL
[12]. We owe a great debt to Kenneth Iverson for showing
us that there are programs that are neither word-at-atime nor dependent on lambda expressions, and for
introducing us to the use of new functional forms. And
since APL assignment statements can store arrays, the
effect of its functional forms is extended beyond a single
assignment.
Unfortunately, however, APL still splits programming into a world of expressions and a world of statements. Thus the effort to write one-line programs is
partly motivated by the desire to stay in the more orderly
world of expressions. APL has exactly three functional
forms, called inner product, outer product, and reduction. These are sometimes difficult to use, there are not
enough of them, and their use is confined to the world
of expressions.
Finally, APL semantics is still too closely coupled to
states. Consequently, despite the greater simplicity and
power of the language, its framework has the complexity
and rigidity characteristic of von Neumann languages.
9. Von Neumann Languages Lack Useful
Mathematical Properties
So far we have discussed the gross size and inflexibility of von Neumann languages; another important
defect is their lack of useful mathematical properties and
the obstacles they present to reasoning about programs.
Although a great amount of excellent work has been
published on proving facts about programs, von Neumann languages have almost no properties that are
helpful in this direction and have many properties that
are obstacles (e.g., side effects, aliasing).
Denotational semantics [23] and its foundations [20,
21] provide an extremely helpful mathematical understanding of the domain and function spaces implicit in
programs. When applied to an applicative language
(such as that of the "recursive programs" of [16]), its
618

foundations provide powerful tools for describing the
language and for proving properties of programs. When
applied to a v o n Neumann language, on the other hand,
it provides a precise semantic description and is helpful
in identifying trouble spots in the language. But the
complexity of the language is mirrored in the complexity
of the description, which is a bewildering collection of
productions, domains, functions, and equations that is
only slightly more helpful in proving facts about programs than the reference manual of the language, since
it is less ambiguous.
Axiomatic semantics [11] precisely restates the inelegant properties ofvon Neumann programs (i.e., transformations on states) as transformations on predicates.
The word-at-a-time, repetitive game is not thereby
changed, merely the playing field. The complexity of this
axiomatic game of proving facts about von Neumann
programs makes the successes of its practitioners all the
more admirable. Their success rests on two factors in
addition to their ingenuity: First, the game is restricted
to small, weak subsets of full von Neumann languages
that have states vastly simpler than real ones. Second,
the new playing field (predicates and their transformations) is richer, more orderly and effective than the old
(states and their transformations). But restricting the
game and transferring it to a more effective domain does
not enable it to handle real programs (with the necessary
complexities of procedure calls and aliasing), nor does it
eliminate the clumsy properties of the basic von Neumann style. As axiomatic semantics is extended to cover
more of a typical von Neumann language, it begins to
lose its effectiveness with the increasing complexity that
is required.
Thus denotational and axiomatic semantics are descriptive formalisms whose foundations embody elegant
and powerful concepts; but using them to describe a v o n
Neumann language can not produce an elegant and
powerful language any more than the use of elegant and
modern machines to build an Edsel can produce an
elegant and modem car.
In any case, proofs about programs use the language
of logic, not the language of programming. Proofs talk
about programs but cannot involve them directly since
the axioms of von Neumann languages are so unusable.
In contrast, many ordinary proofs are derived by algebraic methods. These methods require a language that
has certain algebraic properties. Algebraic laws can then
be used in a rather mechanical way to transform a
problem into its solution. For example, to solve the
equation
ax+bx=a+b
for x (given that a+b ~ 0), we mechanically apply the
distributive, identity, and cancellation laws, in succession, to obtain
(a + b)x = a + b
(a + b)x = (a + b) l
X~

1.

Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

Thus we have proved that x = 1 without leaving the
"language" of algebra. Von Neumann languages, with
their grotesque syntax, offer few such possibilities for
transforming programs.
As we shall see later, programs can be expressed in
a language that has an associated algebra. This algebra
can be used to transform programs and to solve some
equations whose "unknowns" are programs, in much the
same way one solves equations in high school algebra.
Algebraic transformations and proofs use the language
of the programs themselves, rather than the language of
logic, which talks about programs.

10. What Are the Alternatives to von Neumann
Languages?
Before discussing alternatives to von Neumann languages, let me remark that I regret the need for the above
negative and not very precise discussion of these languages. But the complacent acceptance most of us give
to these enormous, weak languages has puzzled and
disturbed me for a long time. I am disturbed because
that acceptance has consumed a vast effort toward making von Neumann languages fatter that might have been
better spent in looking for new structures. For this reason
I have tried to analyze some of the basic defects of
conventional languages and show that those defects cannot be resolved unless we discover a new kind of language framework.
In seeking an alternative to conventional languages
we must first recognize that a system cannot be history
sensitive (permit execution of one program to affect the
behavior of a subsequent one) unless the system has
some kind of state (which the first program can change
and the second can access). Thus a history-sensitive
model of a computing system must have a state-transition
semantics, at least in this weak sense. But this does not
mean that every computation must depend heavily on a
complex state, with many state changes required for each
small part of the computation (as in von Neumann
languages).
To illustrate some alternatives to von Neumann languages, I propose to sketch a class of history-sensitive
computing systems, where each system: a) has a loosely
coupled state-transition semantics in which a state transition occurs only once in a major computation; b) has
a simply structured state and simple transition rules; c)
depends heavily on an underlying applicative system
both to provide the basic programming language of the
system and to describe its state transitions.
These systems, which I call applicative state transition
(or AST) systems, are described in Section 14. These
simple systems avoid many of the complexities and
weaknesses of von Neumann languages and provide for
a powerful and extensive set of changeable parts. However, they are sketched only as crude examples of a vast
area of non-von Neumann systems with various attractive properties. I have been studying this area for the
619

past three or four years and have not yet found a
satisfying solution to the many conflicting requirements
that a good language must resolve. But I believe this
search has indicated a useful approach to designing nonvon Neumann languages.
This approach involves four elements, which can be
summarized as follows.
a) A functional style of programming without variables. A simple, informal functional programming (FP)
system is described. It is based on the use of combining
forms for building programs. Several programs are given
to illustrate functional programming.
b) An algebra of functional programs. An algebra is
described whose variables denote FP functional programs and whose "operations" are FP functional forms,
the combining forms of FP programs. Some laws of the
algebra are given. Theorems and examples are given that
show how certain function expressions may be transformed into equivalent infinite expansions that explain
the behavior of the function. The FP algebra is compared
with algebras associated with the classical applicative
systems of Church and Curry.
c) A formal functional programming system. A formal
(FFP) system is described that extends the capabilities
of the above informal FP systems. An FFP system is
thus a precisely defined system that provides the ability
to use the functional programming style of FP systems
and their algebra of programs. FFP systems can be used
as the basis for applicative state transition systems.
d) Applicative state transition systems. As discussed
above. The rest of the paper describes these four elements, gives some brief remarks on computer design,
and ends with a summary of the paper.

I I. Functional Programming Systems (FP Systems)
11.1 Introduction
In this section we give an informal description of a
class of simple applicative programming systems called
functional programming (FP) systems, in which "programs" are simply functions without variables. The description is followed by some examples and by a discussion of various properties of FP systems.
An FP system is founded on the use of a fixed set of
combining forms called functional forms. These, plus
simple definitions, are the only means of building new
functions from existing ones; they use no variables or
substitution rules, and they become the operations of an
associated algebra of programs. All the functions of an
FP system are of one type: they map objects into objects
and always take a single argument.
In contrast, a lambda-calculus based system is
founded on the use of the lambda expression, with an
associated set of substitution rules for variables, for
building new functions. The lambda expression (with its
substitution rules) is capable of defining all possible
computable functions of all possible types and of any
number of arguments. This freedom and power has its
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

disadvantages as well as its obvious advantages. It is
analogous to the power of unrestricted control statements
in conventional languages: with unrestricted freedom
comes chaos. If one constantly invents new combining
forms to suit the occasion, as one can in the lambda
calculus, one will not become familiar with the style or
useful properties of the few combining forms that are
adequate for all purposes. Just as structured programming eschews many control statements to obtain programs with simpler structure, better properties, and uniform methods for understanding their behavior, so functional programming eschews the lambda expression, substitution, and multiple function types. It thereby achieves
programs built with familiar functional forms with
known useful properties. These programs are so structured that their behavior can often be understood and
proven by mechanical use of algebraic techniques similar
to those used in solving high school algebra problems.
Functional forms, unlike most programming constructs, need not be chosen on an ad hoc basis. Since
they are the operations of an associated algebra, one
chooses only those functional forms that not only provide
powerful programming constructs, but that also have
attractive algebraic properties: one chooses them to maximize the strength and utility of the algebraic laws that
relate them to other functional forms of the system.
In the following description we shall be imprecise in
not distinguishing between (a) a function symbol or
expression and (b) the function it denotes. We shall
indicate the symbols and expressions used to denote
functions by example and usage. Section 13 describes a
formal extension o f FP systems (FFP systems); they can
serve to clarify any ambiguities about FP systems.
11.2 Description
An FP system comprises the following:
l) a set O of objects;
2) a set F of functions f that map objects into objects;
3) an operation, application;
4) a set F of functional forms; these are used to combine
existing functions, or objects, to form new functions in
F;
5) a set D of definitions that define some functions in F
and assign a name to each.
What follows is an informal description of each of
the above entities with examples.
11.2.1 Objects, O. An object x is either an atom, a
sequence <x~ .... , Xn> whose elements xi are objects, or
± ("bottom" or "undefined"). Thus the choice of a set A
of atoms determines the set of objects. We shall take A
to be the set of nonnull strings of capital letters, digits,
and special symbols not used by the notation of the FP
system. Some o f these strings belong to the class of atoms
called "numbers." The atom ~ is used to denote the
empty sequence and is the only object which is both an
atom and a sequence. The atoms T and F are used to
denote "true" and "false."
620

There is one important constraint in the construction
of objects: if x is a sequence with J_ as an element, then
x = ±. That is, the "sequence constructor" is "±-preserving." Thus no proper sequence has i as an element.

Examples of objects

±

1.5 ¢p AB3

<AB, 1, 2.3>

<.4, < < B > , C>, D >

<,4, ± > = ±

11.2.2 Application. An FP system has a single operation, application. I f f is a function and x is an object,
t h e n f : x is an application and denotes the object which
is the result of applying f to x. f is the operator of the
application and x is the operand.

Examples of applications
+:<•,2> = 3 tI:<.A,B,C> = <B,C>
I:<A,B,C> = A 2:<A,B,C> = B
11.2.3 Functions, F. All functions f i n F map objects
into objects and are bottom-preserving:f:± = ±, for a l l f
in F. Every function in F is either primitive, that is,
supplied with the system, or it is defined (see below), or
it is a functional form (see below).
It is sometimes useful to distinguish between two
cases in w h i c h f : x = ± . If the computation f o r f : x terminates and yields the object _1_,we s a y f i s undefined at x,
that is, f terminates but has no meaningful value at x.
Otherwise we s a y f i s nonterminating at x.

Examples of primitive functions
Our intention is to provide FP systems with widely
useful and powerful primitive functions rather than weak
ones that could then be used to define useful ones. The
following examples define some typical primitive functions, many of which are used in later examples o f
programs. In the following definitions we use a variant
of McCarthy's conditional expressions [ 17]; thus we write
pl -+ el; ... ;pn ~ en; e,+l
instead of McCarthy's expression
(401---> el . . . . . p n ---~ en,

T---~ en+l).

The following definitions are to hold for all objects x, xi,
y, yi, Z, Zi:

Selector functions
1 :X ~- X = < X 1 , ... , X n > ""* X1; I

and for any positive integer s
S:X----X=<Xb...,Xn>&n~s--~

xs;-L

Thus, for example, 3 : < A , B , C > = C and 2 : < A > = ±.
Note that the function symbols 1, 2, etc. are distinct from
the atoms 1, 2, etc.
Tail
t h x -- x = < x ~ > ~ if;
x=<xl,
. . . , Xn> & n 2__2~ <x2, .... xn>; i

Identity
id:x - x
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

Atom
a t o m : x - x is an a t o m ~

T; x # 3 - ~

and g, f and g are its parameters, and it denotes the
function such that, for any object x,

F; ,1,

Equals
e q : x -- x = < y , z > & y=z----> T; x = < y , z > & y--~z---> F; ,1,

(fog) :x = f : ( g : x ) .

Null
null:x -= x = ~ ~

Some functional forms m a y have objects as parameters.
For example, for any object x, ~c is a functional form, the
constant function o f x, so that for a n y object y

12, x~_l_ ~

F; _1_

Reverse
reverse:x = x=4~ ~ dp;
X=<Xl,

Yc:y = y = l
... , Xn>

~

< X n , ... ; X I > ; -J-

Distribute from left; distribute from right
distl:x - x = < y @ > ---> ep;
X=<.V,<21 . . . . .

a n > > ----->< < f , & >

..... <y,,%>>;

±

distr:x -- x = < f f , y > ---) q~;
X=<<yl,

... , f n > , 2 >

---> < < . V 1 , Z > , ... , < f i n , a > > ; ±

Length
l e n g t h : x - x = < x , . . . . . Xn> --+ n; x=qa ---> 0; ,1,
Add,
+ :x
-:x
x :x
+:x

subtract, multiply, and divide
= x = < y , z > & y , z are numbers--+
- x = < y , z > & y,z are n u m b e r s ~
-- x = < y , z > & y,z are n u m b e r s ~
- x = < y , z > & y,z are numbers--->

y + z ; ,1,
y - z ; ,1,
yXz; ,1,
y+z; ,1,
(where y + 0 = ,1,)

Transpose
t r a n s : x -- x = < 4 , . . . . . 4'> "-->,/,;
X=<Xl,

... , Xn>

... ,

In particular, _T_is the everywhere-_l_ function.
Below we give some functional forms, m a n y o f which
are used later in this paper. W e u s e p , f, and g with and
without subscripts to denote arbitrary functions; and x,
Xl . . . . . x., y as arbitrary objects. Square brackets [...] are
used to indicate the functional form for construction,
which denotes a function, whereas pointed brackets
< . . . > denote sequences, which are objects. Parentheses
are used both in particular functional forms (e.g., in
condition) and generally to indicate grouping.

Composition
( f o g ) : x =-f : ( g : x )
Construction
[fi . . . . . fn]:x = <fi :x . . . . . f n : X >
(Recall
that
since
< .... 3_.... > = _1_ and all functions are _L-preserving, so

f r o > ; _1_

Condition
( p - + f, g ) : x -- (p:x)=T---~ f : x ;

and
yj=<xtj . . . . . Xnj>, l_i__n, l _ j _ m .

And, or, not
a n d : x ~ x = < T , T > --> T;
x = < T , F > V x = < F , T > V x = < F , F > ---> F; 3etc.
Append left; append right
a p n d l : x = x=<y,ep> ~ < y > ;
X~-<.V,<Z1 . . . . , Z n > > ~

< y , Zl . . . . , Zn>; 3_

a p n d r : x -= x = < q , , z > - - + < z > ;
X = < < y l . . . . . y n > , Z > "-'> < y l . . . . . yn,,Z>; "1"

Right selectors; Right tail
l r : x - x = < x , , ..., Xn> ---) Xn; -J2 r : x -- x=<x~, ..., x , > & n _ 2 -+ x , - , ; 3etc.
tlr:x-- x = < x ~ > --+ 6;
x = < x , .... , x , > & n_>2 --+ < x , . . . . . Xn-,>; "1"
Rotate left; rotate right
rotl:x = x = ~ ~ 4~; x = < x l > "--> < X l > ;
x = < x , . . . . . x . > & n _ 2 ---> <x2 .... , Xn,X,>; ±
etc.
11.2.4 Functional forms, F. A functional form is an
expression denoting a function; that function depends on
the functions or objects which are the parameters o f the
expression. Thus, for example, i f f and g are a n y functions, then f o g is a functional form, the composition o f f
621

3-; x.

is [ f i . . . . . f n ] - )
--+ <yl,

where
Xi~"~-<Xil, ... , Xim>

~

( p : x ) = F - - + g:x; ±

Conditional expressions (used outside o f FP systems to
describe their functions) and the functional f o r m condition are both identified by "---~". T h e y are quite different
although closely related, as shown in the above definitions. But no confusion should arise, since the elements
o f a conditional expression all denote values, whereas
the elements o f the functional form condition all denote
functions, never values. W h e n no ambiguity arises we
omit right-associated parentheses; we write, for example,
pl ---)f,;p2--*f2; g for (pl---> fi; (/02-'-~f2; g)).

Constant (Here x is an object parameter.)
~c:y = y = / ~
±; x
Insert
/ f : x =- x = < x l > ~ Xl; x = < x l , ..., xn > & n_>2
-->f:<x,,/f:<x2 ..... Xn>>; ±
I f f has a unique right unit ur # ±, where
f : < x , u r > E {x, 3_} for all objects x, then the above
definition is extended:/f:q~ = ur. T h u s
/+:<4,5,6> = +:<4, +:<5,/+:<6>>>
= + : < 4 , + : < 5 , 6 > > = 15
/+:~=0

Apply to all
a f : x - x=ep ~ 4';
X=<XI

Communications
of
the ACM

.....

Xn> ~ < f : x ,
August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

.....

f:Xn>; ±

Binary to unary (x is an object parameter)

(bu f x) :y - f: <x,y>
Thus
(bu + l):x = l + x
While
(while p f ) : x ~ p: x = T --* (while p f ) : (f: x);

p:x=F---~ x; ±
The above functional forms provide an effective
method for computing the values of the functions they
denote (if they terminate) provided one can effectively
apply their function parameters.
11.2.5 Definitions. A definition in an FP system is an
expression of the form
Def l -- r

where the left side 1 is an unused function symbol and
the right side r is a functional form (which may depend
on/). It expresses the fact that the symbol I is to denote
the function given by r. Thus the definition Def last 1 loreverse defines the function lastl that produces the
last element of a sequence (or ±). Similarly,
Def last -- nullotl --> l; lastotl

defines the function last, which is the same as last 1. Here
in detail is how the definition would be used to compute
last: <1,2>:
last:<l,2> =
definition of last
action o f the form (p--~fi g)

action of the
definition of
definition of
action o f the

form f o g
primitive tail
last
form (p-*~ g)

definition o f selector 1

(nullotl ---, 1; l a s t o t l ) : < l , 2 >
lastotl:<l,2>
since n u l l o t l : < l , 2 > = n u l l : < 2 >
=F
last:(tl:<l,2>)
last:<2>
(nullotl --~ l; l a s t o t l ) : < 2 >
1:<2>
since n u t l o t l : < 2 > = null:oh = T
~2

The above illustrates the simple rule: to apply a
defined symbol, replace it by the right side of its definition. Of course, some definitions may define nonterminating functions. A set D of definitions is well formed if
no two left sides are the same.
11.2.6 Semantics. It can be seen from the above that
an FP system is determined by choice of the following
sets: (a) The set of atoms A (which determines the set of
objects). (b) The set of primitive functions P. (c) The set
of functional forms F. (d) A well formed set of definitions
D. To understand the semantics of such a system one
needs to know how to compute f : x for any function f
and any object x of the system. There are exactly four
possibilities for f :
( l ) f i s a primitive function;
( 2 ) f i s a functional form;
(3) there is one definition in D, D e f f - r; and
(4) none o f the above.
I f f is a primitive function, then one has its description
622

and knows how to apply it. I f f i s a functional form, then
the description of the form tells how to compute f : x in
terms of the parameters of the form, which can be done
by further use of these rules. I f f is defmed, D e f f - r, as
in (3), then to f m d f : x one computes r:x, which can be
done by further use of these rules. If none of these, then
f : x - .1_. O f course, the use of these rules may not
terminate for s o m e f a n d some x, in which case we assign
the value f : x --- .1_.
11.3 Examples of Functional Programs

The following examples illustrate the functional programming style. Since this style is unfamiliar to most
readers, it may cause confusion at first; the important
point to remember is that no part of a function definition
is a result itself. Instead, each part is a function that must
be applied to an argument to obtain a result.
11.3.1 Factorial.
Def ! - eq0 ~

]; xo[id, !osubl]

where
Def eq0 -- eqo[id, 0]
Def subl - - o [ i d , ]]

Here are some of the intermediate expressions an FP
system would obtain in evaluating !: 2:
!:2 ~ (eqO--~ 1; ×o[id, !osubl]):2
xo[id, !osubl]:2
× : < i d : 2 , !osubl:2> ~ × : < 2 , !:1>
x:<2, x:<l, !:0>>

x:<2, X:<I,I:0>> ~ x:<2, x:<l,l>>
x : < 2 , 1 > ~ 2.
In Section 12 we shall see how theorems of the algebra
o f FP programs can be used to prove that ! is the
factorial function.
11.3.2 Inner product. We have seen earlier how this
definition works.
Def

IP ~- (/+)o(ax)otrans

11.3.3 Matrix multiply. This matrix multiplication
program yields the product of any pair <re,n> of conformable matrices, where each matrix m is represented
as the sequence of its rows:
m

= <ml,

... , m r >

where

mi = <mil .....

mis> for i = 1. . . . . r.

Def MM = (aalp)o(adistl)odistro[ 1, transo2]

The program MM has four steps, reading from right to
left; each is applied in turn, beginning with [1, transo2],
to the result of its predecessor. If the argument is <m,n>,
then the first step yields <rn,n'> where n' = trans:n. The
second step yields <<ml,n'>. . . . , < m r , n ' > > ,
where the
mi are the rows of m. The third step, adistl, yields
<distl:<ml,n'>, ..., distl:<mr,n'>> = <pl, ... ,pr>
where
Communications
of
the A C M

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

pi = d i s t l : < m i , n ' > -- < < m i , n l ' > ,

..., <mi,ns'>>

f o r i = 1..... r
and nj' is the jth column of n (the jth row of n'). Thus pi,
a sequence of row and column pairs, corresponds to the
i-th product row. The operator aedP, or a(etlP), causes
alP to be applied to each pi, which in turn causes IP to
be applied to each row and column pair in each pi. The
result of the last step is therefore the sequence of rows
comprising the product matrix. If either matrix is not
rectangular, or if the length of a row of m differs from
that of a column of n, or if any element of m or n is not
a number, the result is Z.
This program MM does not name its arguments or
any intermediate results; contains no variables, no loops,
no control statements nor procedure declarations; has no
initialization instructions; is not word-at-a-time in nature; is hierarchically constructed from simpler components; uses generally applicable housekeeping forms and
operators (e.g., af, distl, distr, trans); is perfectly general;
yields ± whenever its argument is inappropriate in any
way; does not constrain the order of evaluation unnecessarily (all applications of IP to row and column pairs
can be done in parallel or in any order); and, using
algebraic laws (see below), can be transformed into more
"efficient" or into more "explanatory" programs (e.g.,
one that is recursively defined). None of these properties
hold for the typical von Neumann matrix multiplication
program.
Although it has an unfamiliar and hence puzzling
form, the program MM describes the essential operations
of matrix multiplication without overdetermining the
process or obscuring parts of it, as most programs do;
hence many straightforward programs for the operation
can be obtained from it by formal transformations. It is
an inherently inefficient program for von Neumann
computers (with regard to the use of space), but efficient
ones can be derived from it and realizations of FP
systems can be imagined that could execute MM without
the prodigal use of space it implies. Efficiency questions
are beyond the scope of this paper; let me suggest only
that since the language is so simple and does not dictate
any binding of lambda-type variables to data, there may
be better opportunities for the system to do some kind of
"lazy" evaluation [9, 10] and to control data management
more efficiently than is possible in lambda-calculus
based systems.

11.4 Remarks About FP Systems
11.4.1 FP systems as programming languages. FP
systems are so minimal that some readers may find it
difficult to view them as programming languages.
Viewed as such, a f u n c t i o n f i s a program, an object x is
the contents of the store, and f : x is the contents of the
store after p r o g r a m f i s activated with x in the store. The
set of definitions is the program library. The primitive
functions and the functional forms provided by the
system are the basic statements of a particular programming language. Thus, depending on the choice of prim67.3

itive functions and functional forms, the FP framework
provides for a large class of languages with various styles
and capabilities. The algebra of programs associated
with each of these depends on its particular set of functional forms. The primitive functions, functional forms,
and programs given in this paper comprise an effort to
develop just one of these possible styles.
11.4.2 Limitations of FP systems. FP systems have
a number of limitations. For example, a given FP system
is a fixed language; it is not history sensitive: no program
can alter the library of programs. It can treat input and
output only in the sense that x is an input a n d f : x is the
output. If the set of primitive functions and functional
forms is weak, it may not be able to express every
computable function.
An FP system cannot compute a program since function expressions are not objects. Nor can one define new
functional forms within an FP system. (Both of these
limitations are removed in formal functional programming (FFP) systems in which objects "represent" functions.) Thus no FP system can have a function, apply,
such that
apply: < x , y > = x :y
because, on the left, x is an object, and, on the right, x
is a function. (Note that we have been careful to keep
the set of function symbols and the set of objects distinct:
thus 1 is a function symbol, and 1 is an object.)
The primary limitation of FP systems is that they are
not history sensitive. Therefore they must be extended
somehow before they can become practically useful. For
discussion of such extensions, see the sections on FFP
and AST systems (Sections 13 and 14).
11.4.3 Expressive power of FP systems. Suppose two
FP systems, FP~ and FP2, both have the same set of
objects and the same set of primitive functions, but the
set of functional forms of FP~ properly includes that of
FP2. Suppose also that both systems car~ express all
computable functions on objects. Nevertheless, we can
say that FPi is more expressive than FP2, since every
function expression in FP2 can be duplicated in FP1, but
by using a functional form not belonging to FP2, FP~ can
express some functions more directly and easily than
FP2.
I believe the above observation could be developed
into a theory of the expressive power of languages in
which a language A would be m o r e expressive than
language B under the following roughly stated conditions. First, form all possible functions of all types in A
by applying all existing functions to objects and to each
other in all possible ways until no new function of any
type can be formed. (The set of objects is a type; the set
of continuous functions [T->U] from type T to type U is
a type. IffE[T----~U] and tET, t h e n f t in U can be formed
by applying f to t.) Do the same in language B. Next,
compare each type in A to the corresponding type in B.
If, for every type, A's type includes B's corresponding
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

type, then A is more expressive than B (or equally
expressive). If some type of A's functions is incomparable
to B's, then A and B are not comparable in expressive
power.
11.4.4 Advantages of FP systems. The main reason
FP systems are considerably simpler than either conventional languages or lambda-calculus-based languages is
that they use only the most elementary fixed naming
system (naming a function in a det'mition) with a simple
fixed rule of substituting a function for its name. Thus
they avoid the complexities both of the naming systems
of conventional languages and of the substitution rules
of the lambda calculus. FP systems permit the definition
of different naming systems (see Sections 13.3.4 and
14.7) for various purposes. These need not be complex,
since many programs can do without them completely.
Most importantly, they treat names as functions that can
be combined with other functions without special treatment.
FP systems offer an escape from conventional wordat-a-time programming to a degree greater even than
APL [12] (the most successful attack on the problem to
date within the von Neumann framework) because they
provide a more powerful set of functional forms within
a unified world of expressions. They offer the opportunity to develop higher level techniques for thinking
about, manipulating, and writing programs.

12. The Algebra of Programs for FP Systems
12.1 Introduction
The algebra of the programs described below is the
work of an amateur in algebra, and I want to show that
it is a game amateurs can profitably play and enjoy, a
game that does not require a deep understanding of logic
and mathematics. In spite of its simplicity, it can help
one to understand and prove things about programs in
a systematic, rather mechanical way.
So far, proving a program correct requires knowledge
of some moderately heavy topics in mathematics and
logic: properties of complete partially ordered sets, continuous functions, least fLxed points of functionals, the
first-order predicate calculus, predicate transformers,
weakest preconditions, to mention a few topics in a few
approaches to proving programs correct. These topics
have been very useful for professionals who make it their
business to devise proof techniques; they have published
a lot of beautiful work on this subject, starting with the
work of McCarthy and Floyd, and, more recently, that
of Burstall, Dijkstra, Manna and his associates, Milner,
Morris, Reynolds, and many others. Much of this work
is based on the foundations laid down by Dana Scott
(denotational semantics) and C. A. R. Hoare (axiomatic
semantics). But its theoretical level places it beyond the
scope of most amateurs who work outside of this specialized field.
If the average programmer is to prove his programs
67,4

correct, he will need much simpler techniques than those
the professionals have so far put forward. The algebra of
programs below may be one starting point for such a
proof discipline and, coupled with current work on algebraic manipulation, it may also help provide a basis
for automating some of that discipline.
One advantage of this algebra over other proof techniques is that the programmer can use his programming
language as the language for deriving proofs, rather than
having to state proofs in a separate logical system that
merely talks about his programs.
At the heart of the algebra of programs are laws and
theorems that state that one function expression is the
same as another. Thus the law [fig]oh =_ [foh, goh] says
that the construction o f f and g (composed with h) is the
same function as the construction of ( f composed with
h) and (g composed with h) no matter what the functions
f, g, and h are. Such laws are easy to understand, easy to
justify, and easy and powerful to use. However, we also
wish to use such laws to solve equations in which an
"unknown" function appears on both sides of the equation. The problem is that iffsatisfies some such equation,
it will often happen that some extensionf' of f will also
satisfy the same equation. Thus, to give a unique meaning to solutions of such equations, we shall require a
foundation for the algebra of programs (which uses
Scott's notion of least fixed points of continuous functionals) to assure us that solutions obtained by algebraic
manipulation are indeed least, and hence unique, solutions.
Our goal is to develop a foundation for the algebra
of programs that disposes of the theoretical issues, so
that a programmer can use simple algebraic laws and
one or two theorems from the foundations to solve
problems and create proofs in the same mechanical style
we use to solve high-school algebra problems, and so
that he can do so without knowing anything about least
fixed points or predicate transformers.
One particular foundational problem arises: given
equations of the form

f-po---} q0; ... ;pi---} qi; Ei(f),

(1)

where the pi's and qi's are functions not involvingf and
Ei(f) is a function expression involvingfi the laws of the
algebra will often permit the formal "extension" of this
equation by one more "clause" by deriving
Ei(f)

-- p i + l ~

qi+l; Ei+l(f)

(2)

which, by replacing El(f) in (1) by the right side of (2),

yields
f---po--* q0; ... ;pi+l ~ q~+l; E i + l ( f ) .
(3)
This formal extension may go on without limit. One
question the foundations must then answer is: when can
the least f satisfying (1) be represented by the infinite
expansion
f - po --~ qo; ... ; pn --~ qn; ...

(4)

in which the final clause involving f has been dropped,
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 !
Number 8

so that we now have a solution whose right side is free
off's? Such solutions are helpful in two ways: first, they
give proofs of "termination" in the sense that (4) means
t h a t f : x is defined if and only if there is an n such that,
for every i less than n, pi: x = F and pn : X = T and qn : X
is defined. Second, (4) gives a case-by-case description
o f f that can often clarify its behavior.
The foundations for the algebra given in a subsequent
section are a modest start toward the goal stated above.
For a limited class of equations its "linear expansion
theorem" gives a useful answer as to when one can go
from indefinitely extendable equations like (l) to infinite
expansions like (4). For a larger class of equations, a
more general "expansion theorem" gives a less helpful
answer to similar questions. Hopefully, more powerful
theorems covering additional classes of equations can be
found. But for the present, one need only know the
conclusions of these two simple foundational theorems
in order to follow the theorems and examples appearing
in this section.
The results of the foundations subsection are summarized in a separate, earlier subsection titled "expansion theorems," without reference to f'Lxed point concepts. The foundations subsection itself is placed later
where it can be skipped by readers who do not want to
go into that subject.

12.2 Some Laws of the Algebra of Programs
In the algebra of programs for an FP system variables
range over the set of functions o f the system. The "operations" of the algebra are the functional forms of the
system. Thus, for example, [f,g]oh is an expression of
the algebra for the FP system described above, in which
fi g, and h are variables denoting arbitrary functions of
that system. And
[fig]oh =_ [foh, goh]
is a law of the algebra which says that, whatever functions one chooses for f, g, and h, the function on the left
is the same as that on the right. Thus this algebraic law
is merely a restatement of the following proposition
about any FP system that includes the functional forms
[f,g] and fog:
PROPOSITION: For all functions f, g, and h and all objects
x, ([f,g]oh):x =- [foh, goh]:x.
PROOF:

([fig]oh): x = [fig] :(h :x)
by definition of composition
= <f:(h:x), g:(h:x)>
by definition of construction
=

<(foh):x, (goh):x>

by definition of composition
= [foh, goh]:x
by definition of construction []
Some laws have a domain smaller than the domain
of all objects. Thus 1o[f,g] - f d o e s not hold for objects
x such that g : x = _1_.We write
625

definedog ; -~ lo [fig] - - f
to indicate that the law (or theorem) on the right holds
within the domain of objects x for which definedog:x
= T. Where

Def defined - ~r
i.e. defined:x - x = ± ---> ±; T. In general we shall write
a qualified functional equation:

p --->--->f- g
to mean that, for any object x, w h e n e v e r p : x = T, then
f:x=g:x.
Ordinary algebra concerns itself with two operations,
addition and multiplication; it needs few laws. The algebra of programs is concerned with more operations
(functional forms) and therefore needs more laws.
Each of the following laws requires a corresponding
proposition to validate it. The interested reader will find
most proofs of such propositions easy (two are given
below). We first define the usual ordering on functions
and equivalence in terms of this ordering:
DEFINITIONf__<g iff for all objects x, e i t h e r f : x = ±, or
f : x = g:x.
DEHNITIONf = g iff f<--g and g~_f.
It is easy to verify that _ is a partial ordering, t h a t f _ g
means g is an extension o f f , and t h a t f - g i f f f : x = g:x
for all objects x. We now give a list of algebraic laws
organized by the two principal functional forms involved.
I Composition and construction
1.1
[fl . . . . . fnlog = [flog, .... fnOg]
1.2
afo[g, . . . . . g.] -- [fog, . . . . . fogn]
1.3
/f°[gl . . . . . gn]
- f ° [ g l , / f ° [ g 2 . . . . . gn]] when n_~_2
=-fo[gl, fo[g2 . . . . . fo [gn-1, gn]---]]
/fo[g] - g
1.4
fo[Sc,g] - ( b u f x ) o g
1.5
1o [.fi . . . . . fn] --fl
s°[fl . . . . . f i . . . . . f~] _ f i for any selector s, s _ n
defmedofi (for all i~s, l _ i _ n ) -->-->
SO[fi . . . . . f n ] - - f i

[ f i ° l . . . . . fnonlo[ga . . . . . gn] - [flog1 . . . . . fnogn]
tl°[fi] -- ~; and
tlo[J] . . . . . f~] _--<If2 . . . . . fn] for n_>2
d e f m e d o f --~--~ tlo[fi] -=
and t l o [ f . . . . . fn] -- L6 . . . . . f~] for n_>2
1.7
distlo[fi [g~. . . . . gn]] -= [[f, gx]. . . . . [fign]]
defmedof-->--> distlo[f,~;] - ~
The analogous law holds for distr.
1.8
apndlo[fi [gl . . . . . gn]] ~- [figl . . . . . gn]
nullog-o--, apndlo[fig] - [ f ]
And so on for apndr, reverse, rotl, etc.
1.9
[ .... J_.... ] - J_
1.10 apndlo [fog, afoh] =- afoapndlo[g,h]
I.ll
pair & notonullol >
apndlo[[ 1o 1,2], distro[tlo 1,2]] - distr
1.5.1
1.6

Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

W h e r e f & g - ando[f,g];
pair -= a t o m --~ F; eqo[length,2]
II Composition and condition (right associated parentheses omitted) (Law II.2 is noted in M a n n a et al. [16],
p. 493.)
II.l
(p---~f',g)oh = poh --~ foh; goh
II.2
h o(p---~ g) -- p ~ h oj~ hog
II.3
oro[q,notoq] ---~---~ando[p,q] ---~f,
ando[p,notoq] ~ g; h - p---> ( q ~ f , g); h
II.3.1 p --~ (p--.~f; g); h =- p---~ f ; h
I I I C o m p o s i t i o n and miscellaneous
III.1 ~of_<
de freed of_---~--->_~ o f =
I I I . l . l _[_of m f o ± ==_±
IiI.2 f o i d = i d o f - = f
III.3 pair > > l o d i s t r - [ l o l , 2 ] also:
pair > ~ l o t l - 2
etc.
I l i A a(fog) =- a f o ag
III.5 n u l l o g - - , - - , afog =
IV Condition and construction
IV.l
[fi . . . . . ( p - - ~ g ; h ) . . . . . fn]
- p---~ [fi . . . . . g . . . . . fn]; [fl . . . . . h . . . . . fi~]
IV.l.1 [ f l . . . . . (pl --~ gl; ... ; p n ---> gn; h) . . . . . f m ]
= p l ~ [J~ . . . . . gl . . . . . f m ] ;
•. - ; p n "-'> [ f i . . . . . g . . . . . . f m ] ; I l l . . . . .

h ..... fm]

PROPOSITION 2
Pair & notonullo I --*--*
apndlo[[l 2, 2], distro[tlo 1, 2]] -= distr
where f ± g is the function: a n d o [ f , g], a n d f 2 - f o f .
PROOF. W e show that both sides produce the same result
w h e n applied to any pair <x,y>, where x # ~, as per the
stated qualification.
CASE 1. X is an a t o m or i . T h e n distr: < x , y > = .k, since
x # $. T h e left side also yields ± w h e n applied to < x , y > ,
since tlo 1: < x , y > = & and all functions are i - p r e s e r v i n g .
CASE 2. x = <Xl . . . . . Xn>. T h e n
apndlo[[l 2,
= apndl:
= apndl:
= apndl:

2], distro[tlo 1, 2]]:<x, y >
< < l : x , y > , distr: <tl:x, y > >
<<xl,y>, $> = <<x~,y>>
if tl:x = q~
<<xl,y>, <<xz,y> ..... <Xn,y>>>
if tl:x #

= < < X l , y > , ... , < X n , y > >

= distr: < x , y >

[]

12.3 Example: Equivalence of Two Matrix
Multiplication Programs
W e have seen earlier the matrix multiplication program:

Def M M - a a I P o adistl o distr o [1, transo2].
W e shall n o w show that its initial segment, M M ' , where

This concludes the present list o f algebraic laws; it is by
no m e a n s exhaustive, there are m a n y others.

D e f M M ' - a a I P o adistl o distr,

Proof of two laws
W e give the proofs o f validating propositions for laws
I. 10 and I. 11, which are slightly m o r e involved than most
o f the others.

can be defined recursively. ( M M ' "multiplies" a pair o f
matrices after the second matrix has been transposed.
Note that M M ' , unlike M M , gives A_ for all a r g u m e n t s
that are not pairs.) T h a t is, we shall show that M M '
satisfies the following equation which recursively defines
the same function (on pairs):

PROPOSITION

f - = null o 1 ~ q~; apndlo [alpodistlo [1 o 1, 2], fo [tlo 1, 2]].

1

a p n d l o [fog, afoh] ~ a f o a p n d l o [g,h]
PROOF. W e show that, for every object x, both o f the
a b o v e functions yield the same result.
CASE 1. h:x is neither a sequence nor q,.
T h e n both sides yield ± w h e n applied to x.
CASE 2. h:x = ~. T h e n
apndlo[fog, afoh]: x
= apndl: <fog:x, ~ > = <f.'(g:x)>
afoapndlo[g,h ]: x
= afoapndl: <g:x, if> = af.'<g:x>
= <f.'(g:x)>

626.

> ~MM'=R,

M M - M M ' o [1, transo2] = R o [1, transo2];

----- <f." ( g : x ) , f.'yl . . . . . f-'yn >

= <f." ( g : x ) , f.'yl . . . . . J ~ y n >

is, for all pairs <x,y>, the same function as M M ' . R
"multiplies" two matrices, w h e n the first has m o r e t h a n
zero rows, by c o m p u t i n g the first row o f the " p r o d u c t "
(with aIpodistlo[lo 1, 2]) and adjoining it to the "product" o f the tail o f the first matrix and the second matrix.
T h u s the t h e o r e m we want is

from which the following is immediate:

apndlo[fog, afoh]: x
-- apndl: <fog:x, af." < y l . . . . . y n > >

.....

Def R m null o 1 --~ 6;
apndlo[aIpodistlo[l o 1, 2], MM'o[tlo 1, 2]]

pair

CASE 3. h:x = < y l . . . . . y n > . T h e n

ofoapndlo[g,h ]: x
= afoapndl: <g:.x, < y l

O u r p r o o f will take the f o r m o f showing that the following function, R,

where
D e f pair = a t o m --~ F; eqo]length, 2].

yn>>
= af'.<g:x, y~ . . . . . y n >
[]

THEOREM: pair--*--~ M M ' = R
where
Communicat; ~ns
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

D e f MM' - aalP o adistl o distr
D e f R -- nullo 1 ~ ~;

where the pi's and q i ' s a r e particular functions, so that E

has the property:

apndlo[alpodistlo[12, 2], MM'o[tlo 1, 2]]
PROOF.

CASE 1. p a i r & n u l l o l

• ~MM'-=R.

p a i r & n u l l o l > >R--=6 b y d e f o f R
pair & nullo 1 ---~---~MM' since distr: < $ , x > = $ by def of distr
and a j ~ = $ by def of Apply to all.
And so: aaIP o adistl o distr: < ~ , x > = q~.
Thus pair & nullo 1 ---~---~MM' - R.
CASE 2. pair & notonullo I ~
MM' -- R.

E(fi) - f i + l for i = 0, 1, 2 ....

(E3)

Then we say that E is expansive and has the jS's as
approximating functions.
If E is expansive and has approximating functions as
in (E2), and i f f is the solution of (El), t h e n f can be
written as the infinite expansion
f-po--*

qo; ... ;pn ---> qn; ...

(E4)

D e f R' - apndlo[alPodistlo[12, 2], MM'o[tlo 1, 2]].

meaning that, for any x, fix # ± iff there is an n _> 0
such that (a)pi:x = F for all i < n, and (b)pn:x = T, and
(c) qn:X # _l_. W h e n f : x # ±, thenf.'x = qn:X for this n.
(The foregoing is a consequence of the "expansion theorem".)
12.4.2 Linear expansion. A more helpful tool for
solving some equations applies when, for any function h,

We note that

E(h) - p0 ---, q0; El(h)

R' -- apndlo[fog, afoh]

and there exist pi and qi such that

where

E l ( p i ---> qi;

pair & notonullo 1 ---~---~R - R',

(l)

by def of R and R', where

f - = aIpodistl
g - [12, 21
h =- distro[tlo 1, 2]
a f - a(alpodistl) = aalpoadistl

(by 111.4).

R ' = afoapndlo[g,h].

(2)

pair & notonullo I ---~--->apndlo[g,h] = distr.

(3)

(4)

pair & notonullo 1 ---~---~R - R'
- afodistr - aaIPoadistlodistr - MM'.
Case l and Case 2 together prove the theorem.

[]

12.4 Expansion Theorems
In the following subsections we shall be "solving"
some simple equations (where by a "solution" we shall
mean the "least" function which satisfies an equation).
To do so we shall need the following notions and results
drawn from the later subsection on foundations of the
algebra, where their proofs appear.
12.4.1 Expansion. Suppose we have an equation of
the form
(El)

where E ( f ) is an expression involvingf. Suppose further
that there is an infinite sequence of functionsfi for i = 0,
1, 2 . . . . . each having the following form:

(LE3)

f ~- E ( f )

(LE4)

f = - p o - - , q0;'... ;pn "-> qn; ...

(LE5)

using the pi's and qi's generated by (LE 1) and (LE2).
Although the pi's and qi's of (E4) or (LE5) are not
unique for a given function, it may be possible to find
additional constraints which would make them so, in
which case the expansion (LE5) would comprise a canonical form for a function. Even without uniqueness
these expansions often permit one to prove the equivalence of two different function expressions, and they
often clarify a function's behavior.
12.5 A Recursion T h e o r e m

Using three of the above laws and linear expansion,
one can prove the following theorem of moderate generality that gives a clarifying expansion for many recursively defined functions.
RECURSION THEOREM:L e t f be a solution of
f-

p --~ g;, Q ( f )

(1)

where
Q(k) - ho[i, koj] for any function k

fo-£
627

E , ( i ) - _[_.

then E is expansive and f can again be written as the
infinite expansion

And so we have, by (1), (2), (3) and (4),

J~+l m p o "-"> qo; .-. ; p i - - ~ qi; -1-

(LE2)

Under the above conditions E is said to be linearly
expansive. If so, a n d f is the solution of

Now apndlo[g,h] -= apndlo[[l 2, 2], distro[tlo 1, 2]],
thus, by I. 11,

E(f)

h) = p i + l ~ qi+l; E l ( h )
for i = 0, 1, 2 ....

and

Thus, by I. 10,

f-

(LEI)

(E2)

and p, g, h, i, j are any given functions, then
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 l
Number 8

(2)

f-p--->

~,,poj-.

Q(g); ... ;pojn'-> Q~(g); ...

(3)

(where Q~(g) is ho[i, Q n - a ( g ) ° J ] , and j~ is j o j n-1 for
n >__2) and
Qn(g) ___/h o[i, ioj, .... ioj n-a, gojn].

Q(pn ~ qn, k)
- h o [ i , (pn ---~ q~; k)°j] by (2)
- ho[i, (pn°j--~ qn°j; koj)] by II.l
- ho(p~oj---~ [i, qnOj]; [i, koj]) by IV.l
- p~oj---~ ho[i, q~oj]; ho[i, koj] by II.2
- p , o j - ~ Q(q~); Q(k) by (2)

--~n×(n-

l) x . . . x

(5)

(6)

qn -~ Q n ( g ) .

ITERATION THEOREM: L e t f be the solution (i.e., the least
solution) o f
f - p---~ g;, hofok

then
f =_p .-o g; p o k ~ hogok; ... ; p o k n --o hnogok~; ...

PROOF. Let h' - ho2, i' =- id, f =- k, then

Q ( i ) -- ho[i, i o j ]
- ho[i, &]
= ho~
~- i

f -- p ---> g; h' o[i', foj']

by III.l.l
by 1.9
by III.1.1.

(7)

Thus (5) and (6) verify (LE2) and (7) verifies (LE3), with
E1 -- Q. If we let E(--f) -= p ~ g; Q ( f ) , then we have
(LE1); thus E is linearly expansive. Since f is a solution
o f f - - E ( f ) , conclusion (3) follows from (6) and (LE5).
Now

Q~(g) = ho[i, Qn-~(g)°J]
- ho[i, ho[ioj, .... ho[ioj n-~, goj n] ... ]]
by I. 1, repeatedly
ioj, .... iojn-l,'g°j ~]

by 1.3

(8)

Result (8) is the second conclusion (4).
[]
12.5.1 Example: correctness proof of a reeursive
factorial function. L e t f b e a solution o f
f-eq0--~

]; ×o[id, fos]

where
(subtract 1).

T h e n f satisfies the hypothesis o f the recursion theorem
with p - eq0, g - L h - x , i - id, and j - s. Therefore
f-

eq0 --~ ]; ... ; eq0os n --~ Q~(h; ...

and
Q~()) _ / ×

o [id, idos . . . . . idos n-l, ]osn].

NOW idos k -~ s k by III.2 and eq0os n --.--* los n - ] by
III.1, since eq0osn:x implies defmedosn:x; and also
eq0osn:x --- eq0: (x - n) - x = n . Thus if eq0osn: x = T,
then x = n and
QR(~): n =

628

since ho2o[id, f o k ] - hofok by 1.5 (id is defined except
for A_, and the equation holds for _1_).Thus the recursion
theorem gives
f _ p _ _ _ > g; ... ;pokn _.> Qnfg); ...

where
Qn(g) _ ho2o[id, Qn-l(g)ok]
=_ h o O n - t ( g ) o k =__hnogok n
b y I . 5 []
12.6.1 Example: Correctness proof for an iterative
factorial function. L e t f be the solution o f
f-

eq0ol --> 2;fo[so 1, ×]

where Def s - - o [ i d , i] (substract 1). We want to prove
t h a t f . ' < x , l > = x! iff x is a nonnegative integer. Let p -=
eq0o 1, g - 2, h - id, k - [so 1, ×]. T h e n
f-p

n × (n - 1) × ... × (n - (n - 1))
x (l: (n - n)) = n!.

--> g; h o f o k

and so
f-p-->

Def s - - o [ i d , i]

l;...

Thus we have proved t h a t f terminates on precisely the
set o f nonnegative integers and that it is the factorial
function thereon.

Finally,

-/ho[i,

Ix

12.6 An Iteration Theorem
This is really a corollary o f the recursion theorem. It
gives a simple expansion for m a n y iterative programs.

Thus i f p o - p and qo - g, then (5) gives px - p o j and
ql = Q(g) and in general gives the following functions
satisfying (LE2)
and

f i x - x=O--~ 1; ... ; x = n

(4)

PROOF. W e verify t h a t p --> g;, Q ( f ) is linearly expansive.
Let p~, qn and k be any functions. T h e n

pn - p ° j n

Using these results for ios ~, eq0os ~, and Q n ( ~ ) in the
previous expansion for f , we obtain

g; ... ;pokn ~ g°kn; ...

(1)

by the iteration theorem, since h n - id. W e want to show
that
pair--->---> k n --- Jan, bn]

(2)

holds for every n _> 1, where
an - s% 1
bn - / × ° [s ~-1° 1. . . . . so l, 1, 2]

(3)
(4)

N o w (2) holds for n = 1 by definition o f k. W e assume
it holds for some n _ 1 and prove it then holds for
n + 1. N o w
pair

~ ~ k n+l -= kok ~ =- [so 1, x ] o [ a , , b,]

since (2) holds for n. And so
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

(5)

pair-->--* k ~+~ =- [soan, Xo[an, bn]] by 1.1 and 1.5

(6)

T o pass from (5) to (6) we must check that whenever an
or bn yield £ in (5), so will the right side o f (6). N o w
soan =- s n+l° 1 -- an+l
×o[an, b.] - / ×
° [s ~° 1, s n-lo 1. . . . . so 1, 1, 2]
- b.+l by 1.3.

(7)
(8)

C o m b i n i n g (6), (7), and (8) gives
pair--->---> k ~+~ - [an+l, bn+l].

(9)

Thus (2) holds for n = 1 and holds for n + 1 whenever
it holds for n, therefore, by induction, it holds for every
n _> 1. N o w (2) gives, for pairs:
definedok n --,--. p o k n = eq0o l o[an, bn]
- eq0oan = eq0os"o 1
d e f m e d o k n ---~--~gok ~
---- 2°[an, bn] - - / × o [s~-X°l . . . . . sol, 1, 2]

(10)
(11)

(both use 1.5). N o w (1) tells us t h a t f . ' < x , l > is defined iff
there is an n such t h a t p o k i : < x , l > = F for all i < n, and
p o k " : < x , l > = T, that .is, by (10), eq0os~:x = T, i.e.,
x = n ; and g o I d : < x , l > is defined, in which case, by (1 l),
f<x,l>

=/X:<I,

2 . . . . . x - I , x, 1> = n!,

which is what we set out to prove.
12.6.2 Example: proof of equivalence of two iterative
programs. In this example we want to prove that two
iteratively defined p r o g r a m s , f and g, are the same function. L e t f b e the solution o f
f = _ p o l ~ 2; hofo[kol, 2].

fn -- p ~ id; ... ; poh n-1 ---->hn-1; J.

(2a)

(3)

p°hi

(4)

N o w E(J~) - p

where (letting r ° =- id for any r), for n = 0, 1....
by 1.5.1
by 1.5.1
by 1.5.1
by 1.5.1.

for n > 0

(5)
(6)
(7)
(8)

(9)
(10)
(11)

fn - id and so

> >fn°hi --- hi.

(3)

--~ id; J_2oh ~-Jq,

(4)

E(fn)
- p ---> id;f~o(p ---> id; ... ; p o h n-1 ~ hn-12 j_)oh
-= p ~ i d ; f n ° ( p ° h ~ h; ... ; p ° h n --) h"; ± °h)
- p ..-.) id; poh --., f~oh; ... ; poh'~ ---~f~ oh~; fn Oi
- p---> id; p°h---~ h; ... ; p ° h " - - ) hn; & b y ( 3 )
-fn+~.

(5)

T h u s E is expansive by (4) and (5); so by (2) and Section
12.4.1 (E4)
f = p --* id; ... ; poh ~ --* h"; ....

Thus
) ) defmedo2 - f
• • p~ - p"

(12)
(13)

and
f - - p o - - > qo; ... ;pn---~ h%2; ...
g ---p~ ~ q~; ... ;p~ ~ h%2; ...

(2b)

and

Now, from the above, using 1.5,

629

(1)

(2)

First we note that p ~

f - p0 ---, q0; ... ;pn ---) qn; ...
g --p6---> q6; ... ,"p ,' ---) q .....
'"

defmedohno2
defmedoh%2,

id;f%h.

(1)

Then, by the iteration theorem:

p~ - po/Co 1
~ - p" - p o k % 1
) • q~ = q~ - hno2

f-= E(f) -p--~

j~-= i

g - po 1 ~ 2; go[ko 1, ho2].

defmedo2 ~
defmedoh%2
defmedo~o I

12.7 Nonlinear Equations
T h e preceding examples have concerned "linear"
equations (in which the " u n k n o w n " function does not
have an a r g u m e n t involving itself). T h e question o f the
existence o f simple expansions that "solve .... quadratic"
and higher order equations remains open.
T h e earlier examples concerned solutions o f f - - E ( f ) ,
where E is linearly expansive. T h e following e x a m p l e
involves an E ( f ) that is quadratic and expansive (but
not linearly expansive).
12.7.1 Example: proof of idemlmtency ([16] p. 497).
L e t f b e the solution o f

W e wish to prove that f - - f 2 .
We verify that E is
expansive (Section 12.4.1) with the following approximating functions:

Let g be the solution of

pn - p o l o [ k o l , 2] n - - p o l o [ k % l , 2]
q, = h%2o[ko 1, 2] n -- h%2o[/Co 1, 2]
p'n-p°lo[k°l,h°2]n-p°lo[k%l,h%2]
q~ -= 2o[ko 1, ho2]" - 2o[/,3ol, hno2]

since pn and p " provide the qualification needed for q~
-- q" - h%2.
N o w suppose there is an x such t h a t f x # g:x. T h e n
there is an n such that pi:x = p¢:x = F for i < n, and p , : x
# p~:x. F r o m (12) and (13) this can only h a p p e n when
h%2:x = ±. But since h is ±-preserving, hmo2:x = I for
all m _> n. H e n c e f : x = g:x = i by (14) and (15). This
contradicts the assumption that there is an x for which
f i x # g:x. Hence f - g.
This example (by J. H. Morris, Jr.) is treated more
elegantly in [16] on p. 498. However, some m a y find that
the above treatment is m o r e constructive, leads one more
mechanically to the key questions, and provides more
insight into the b e h a v i o r o f the two functions.

(14)
(15)

(6)

But (6), by the iteration theorem, gives
f-

p --) id;foh.

(7)

Now, f f p : x = T, thenf.'x = x = f 2 : x , by (1). I f p : x = F,
then
fix = f2oh:x
Communications
of
the ACM

by (1)
August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

= f'.(foh:x) =f.'(f.'x) by (7)
f2:x.

=

DEFINITION. Let E ( f ) be a function expression satisfying
the following:

I f p : x iS neither T nor F, thenf.'x -- ± =f2:x. Thus

E(h) -po---~ qo; El(h)

f_f2.

where pi E F and qi E F exist such that

12.8 Foundations for the Algebra of Programs
Our purpose in this section is to establish the validity
of the results stated in Section 12.4. Subsequent sections
do not depend on this one, hence it can be skipped by
readers who wish to do so. We use the standard concepts
and results from [16], but the notation used for objects
and functions, etc., will be that of this paper.
We take as the domain (and range) for all functions
the set O of objects (which includes ±) of a given FP
system. We take F to be the set of functions, and F to be
the set of functional forms of that FP system. We write
E ( f ) for any function expression involving functional
forms, primitive and defined functions, and the function
symbol f, and we regard E as a functional that maps a
function f into the corresponding function E ( f ) . We
assume that all f ~ F are &-preserving and that all
functional forms in F correspond to continuous functionals in every variable (e.g., [f, g] is continuous in b o t h f
and g). (All primitive functions of the FP system given
earlier are _L-preserving, and all its functional forms are
continuous.)
DEFINITIONS. Let E ( f ) be a function expression. Let

fo-=£
fi+x ----po ~ qo; ... ; pi ~ qi; J-

for i = 0, 1....

where pi, qi E F. Let E have the property that
E(fi)----fi+~

fori=0,1 .....

Then E is said to be expansive with the approximating

for all h E F

El(pi ~ qi; h) - pi+l ~ qi+l; El(h)
for all h E F and i = 0, 1....

EI(_T_) -= &.

(LE3)

Then E is said to be linearly expansive with respect to
these pi's and qi's.
LINEAR EXPANSIONTHEOREM:Let E be linearly expansive
with respect to pi and qi, i = 0, 1..... Then E is expansive
with approximating functions
fo- i
f,+l - p o ~ q0; ... ;pi ~ qi; i .

E(fo) = p0---~ qo; E~ ( i ) ----p0---~ q0; & - - f i
(3)
by (LE1) (LE3) (1).
Let i > 0 be fLxed and let
fi = po ~ qo; W1
W1 ~ px ~ ql; W2
etc.

(4a)
(4b)

Wi--1 ~ pi-1 ~

(4-)

qi--1; ~ .

Then, for this i > 0
E(fi) - p0 ~ q0; El(fi) by (LE1)
E~(fi) - pl ~ ql; El(Wa) by (LE2) and (4a)
El(w~) - p2 --~ q2; E~(w2) by (LE2) and (4b)

f=po---~ q0; ... ;pn---~ qn;-..

E~(wi-~) -= pi ~ qi; E~ ( i ) by (LE2) and (4-)
- pi --~ qi; A- by (LE3)

f~

E(f).

(1)
(2)

PROOF. We want to show that E(fi) =-fi+~ for any i _ 0.
Now

etc.

EXPANSION THEOREM: Let E ( f ) be expansive with approximating functions as above. Let f be the least function satisfying

(LE2)

and

functionsfi. We write
to mean that f = limi{fi}, where the fi have the form
above. We call the right side an infinite expansion o f f .
We takef.'x to be defined iff there is an n _> 0 such that
(a) pi:x = F for all i < n, and (b) p,:x = T, and (c) qn:x
is defined, in which casef.'x = qn:X.

(EEl)

Combining the above gives
E(fi) - f + l

for arbitrary i > 0, by (2).

(5)

By (3), (5) also holds for i -- 0; thus it holds for all i >__0.
Therefore E is expansive and has the required approximating functions.
[]
COROLLARY. If E is linearly expansive with respect to pi
and qi, i = 0, 1. . . . . a n d f i s the least function satisfying
f---- E ( f )

(LE4)

Then
f - - p0 ~ q0; ... ; p , ~ qn; ...
PROOF. Since E is the composition of continuous functionals (from F) involving only monotonic functions
(_l_-preserving functions from F) as constant terms, E is
continuous ([16] p. 493). Therefore its least fixed p o i n t f
is limi{Ei(j-)} -= limi(fi} ([16] p. 494), which by defmition
is the above inf'mite expansion forf.
[]
630

then
f - po ~ qo; ... ; pn ---~ qn; ....

(LE5)

12.9 The Algebra of Programs for the Lambda Calculus
and for Combinators
Because Church's lambda calculus [5] and the system
of combinators developed by Sch6nfinkel and Curry [6]
Communications
of
the A C M

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

are the primary mathematical systems for representing
the notion of application of functions, and because they
are more powerful than FP systems, it is natural to
enquire what an algebra of programs based on those
systems would look like.
The lambda calculus and combinator equivalents of
FP composition, fog, are

hfgx.(f(gx)) --- B
where B is a simple combinator defined by Curry. There
is no direct equivalent for the FP object <x,y> in the
Church or Curry systems proper; however, following
Landin [14] and Burge [4], one can use the primitive
functions prefix, head, tail, null, and atomic to introduce
the notion of list structures that correspond to FP sequences. Then, using FP notation for lists, the lambda
calculus equivalent for construction is ~fgx.<fx,gx>. A
combinatory equivalent is an expression involving pret'Lx,
the null list, and two or more basic combinators. It is so
complex that I shall not attempt to give it.
If one uses the lambda calculus or combinatory
expressions for the functional forms fog and [fig] to
express the law 1.1 in the FP algebra, [f,g]oh =
[foh, goh], the result is an expression so complex that the
sense of the law is obscured. The only way to make that
sense clear in either system is to name the two functionals: composition - B, and construction --- A, so that Bfg
=fog, and Afg --- [f,g]. Then 1.1 becomes
B(Afg)h -- A(Bfh)(Bgh),
which is still not as perspicuous as the FP law.
The point of the above is that if one wishes to state
clear laws like those of the FP algebra in either Church's
or Curry's system, one finds it necessary to select certain
functionals (e.g., composition and construction) as the
basic operations of the algebra and to either give them
short names or, preferably, represent them by some
special notation as in FP. If one does this and provides
primitives, objects, lists, etc., the result is an FP-like
system in which the usual lambda expressions or combinators do not appear. Even then these Church or Curry
versions of FP systems, being less restricted, have some
problems that FP systems do not have:
a) The Church and Curry versions accommodate
functions of many types and can define functions that
do not exist in FP systems. Thus, Bf is a function that
has no counterpart in FP systems. This added power
carries with it problems of type compatibility. For example, in fog, is the range of g included in the domain
o f f ? In FP systems all functions have the same domain
and range.
b) The semantics of Church's lambda calculus depends on substitution rules that are simply stated but
whose implications are very difficult to fully comprehend. The true complexity of these rules is not widely
recognized but is evidenced by the succession of able
logicians who have published "proofs" of the ChurchRosser theorem that failed to account for one or another
631

of these complexities. (The Church-Rosser theorem, or
Scott's proof of the existence of a model [22], is required
to show that the lambda calculus has a consistent semantics.) The defmition of pure Lisp contained a related
error for a considerable period (the "funarg" problem).
Analogous problems attach to Curry's system as well.
In contrast, the formal (FFP) version of FP systems
(described in the next section) has no variables and only
an elementary substitution rule (a function for its name),
and it can be shown to have a consistent semantics by a
relatively simple fLxed-point argument along the lines
developed by Dana Scott and by Manna et al [16]. For
such a proof see McJones [18].
12.10 Remarks
The algebra of programs outlined above needs much
work to provide expansions for larger classes of equations
and to extend its laws and theorems beyond the elementary ones given here. It would be interesting to explore
the algebra for an FP-like system whose sequence constructor is not _L-preserving (law 1.5 is strengthened, but
IV. 1 is lost). Other interesting problems are: (a) Find
rules that make expansions unique, giving canonical
forms for functions; (b) find algorithms for expanding
and analyzing the behavior of functions for various
classes of arguments; and (c) explore ways of using the
laws and theorems of the algebra as the basic rules either
of a formal, preexecution "lazy evaluation" scheme [9,
10], or of one which operates during execution. Such
schemes would, for example, make use of the law
1o[f,g] _<fto avoid evaluating g:x.

13. Formal Systems for Functional Programming
(FFP Systems)
13.1 Introduction
As we have seen, an FP system has a set of functions
that depends on its set of primitive functions, its set of
functional forms, and its set of definitions. In particular,
its set of functional forms is fixed once and for all, and
this set determines the power of the system in a major
way. For example, if its set of functional forms is empty,
then its entire set of functions is just the set of primitive
functions. In FFP systems one can create new functional
forms. Functional forms are represented by object sequences; the first element of a sequence determines
which form it represents, while the remaining elements
are the parameters of the form.
The ability to define new functional forms in FFP
systems is one consequence of the principal difference
between them and FP systems: in FFP systems objects
are used to "represent" functions in a systematic way.
Otherwise FFP systems mirror FP systems closely. They
are similar to, but simpler than, the Reduction (Red)
languages of an earlier paper [2].
We shall first give the simple syntax of FFP systems,
then discuss their semantics informally, giving examples,
and finally give their formal semantics.
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

13.2 Syntax
We describe the set O of objects and the set E of
expre.,;sions of an FFP system. These depend on the
choice of some set A of atoms, which we take as given.
We assume that T (true), F (false), ff (the empty sequence), and # (default) belong to A, as well as "numbers" of various kinds, etc.
1) Bottom, ±, is an object but not an atom.
2) Every atom is an object.
3) Every object is an expression.
4) If x~..... xn are objects [expressions], then
< x i ..... x~> is an object [resp., expression] called a
sequence (of length n) for n _> 1. The object [expression]
xi for 1 ___ i __%n, is the ith element of the sequence
< x l . . . . . xl . . . . . xn>. (ff is both a sequence and an atom;
its length is 0.)
5) If x and y are expressions, then (x:y) is an expression
called an application, x is its operator a n d y is its operand.
Both are elements of the expression.
6) If x = < x l . . . . . Xn> and if one of the elements of x is
_1_,then x = .1_. That is, <..., ± .... > = ±.
7) All objects and expressions are formed by finite use
of the above rules.
A subexpression of an expression x is either x itself or
a subexpression o f an element of x. An FFP object is an
expression that has no application as a subexpression.
Given the same set of atoms, FFP and FP objects are
the same.
13.3 Informal Remarks About FFP Semantics
13.3.1 The meaning of expressions; the semantic
function p. Every F F P expression e has a meaning, #e,
which is always an object; #e is found by repeatedly
replacing each innermost application in e by its meaning.
If this process is nonterminating, the meaning of e is ±.
The meaning of an innermost application (x:y) (since it
is innermost, x and y must be objects) is the result of
applying the function represented by x to y, just as in FP
systems, except that in FFP systems functions are represented by objects, rather than by function expressions,
with atoms (instead of function symbols) representing
primitive and defined functions, and with sequences
representing the FP functions denoted by functional
forms.
The association between objects and the functions
they represent is given by the representation function, P,
o f the F F P system. (Both p and # belong to the description o f the system, not the system itself.) Thus if the
atom N U L L represents the FP function null, then
pNULL = null and the meaning of (NULL:A) is
#(NULL:A) = (pNULL):A = null:A = F.
From here on, as above, we use the colon in two senses.
When it is between two objects, as in (NULL:A), it
identifies an F F P application that denotes only itself;
when it comes between a function and an object, as in
(oNULL):A or null:A, it identifies an FP-like application
that denotes the result of applying the function to the
object.
The fact that F F P operators are objects makes pos632

sible a function, apply, which is meaningless in FP
systems:
apply:<x,y> = (x:y).
The result o f apply:<x,y>, namely (x:y), is meaningless
in FP systems on two levels. First, (x:y) is not itself an
object; it illustrates another difference between FP and
FFP systems: some FFP functions, like apply, map objects into expressions, not directly into objects as FP
functions do. However, the meaning of apply:<x,y> is
an object (see below). Second, (x:y) could not be even an
intermediate result in an FP system; it is meaningless in
FP systems since x is an object, not a function and FP
systems do not associate functions with objects. Now if
A P P L Y represents apply, then the meaning o f
(APPL Y:<NULL,A>) is

#(APPL Y:<NULL,A>)
= #((pAPPL Y):<NULL, A>)
= #(apply:<NULL,A>)
= It(NULL:A) = #((pNULL):A)
= #(null:A) = # F = F.
The last step follows from the fact that every object is its
own meaning. Since the meaning function/t eventually
evaluates all applications, one can think of
apply<NULL,A> as yielding F even though the actual
result is (NULL:A).
13.3.2 How objects represent functions; the representation function #. As we have seen, some atoms
(primitive atoms) will represent the primitive functions o f
the system. Other atoms can represent defined functions
just as symbols can in FP systems. I f an atom is neither
primitive nor defined, it represents 1, the function which
is .1_ everywhere.
Sequences also represent functions and are analogous
to the functional forms of FP. The function represented
by a sequence is given (recursively) by the following rule.
Metacomposition rule
(p<X1 . . . . . Xn>):y = ( p X l ) : < < X l . . . . . Xn>, y > ,

where the xi's and y are objects. Here pxl determines
what
functional
form
<Xl, ..., xn>
represents,
and x2. . . . . Xn are the parameters of the form (in FFP, xl
itself can also serve as a parameter). Thus, for example,
let Def o C O N S T - 2ol; then <CONST, x> in F F P
represents the FP functional form ~, since, by the metacomposition rule, i f y ~ .1_,

(o<CONST, x>):y = (pCONST):<<CONST, x>,y>
= 20 I:<<CONST, x>,y> = x.
Here we can see that the first, controlling, operator of a
sequence or form, CONST in this case, always has as its
operand, after metacomposition, a pair whose first element is the sequence itseff and whose second element is
the original operand o f the sequence, y in this case. The
controlling operator can then rearrange and reapply the
elements o f the sequence and original operand in a great
variety o f ways. The significant point about metacomCommunications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

position is that it permits the definition of new functional
forms, in effect, merely by defining new functions. It also
permits one to write recursive functions without a deftnition.
We give one more example of a controlling function
for a functional form: Def p C O N S = aapplyotlodistr.
This defmition results in < C O N S , f x . . . . . f n > - - w h e r e the
fi are objects--representing the same function as
[pfl . . . . . #fn]. The following shows this.
( p < C O N S , f l . . . . . fn>):X
= ( p C O N S ) : < < C O N S , f ~ . . . . . fn > , x >

by metacomposition
= aapplyotlodistr:<<CONS, f i . . . . . fn>,X>

by def of p C O N S
= aapply:<<fi,x>

. . . . .

<fn,X>>

by def of tl and distr and o
= <apply:<fi,x> . . . . . apply:<fn,x>>
by def of a
- < ( f i : x ) . . . . . (fn:X)> by def of apply.
In evaluating the last expression, the meaning function
# will produce the meaning of each application, giving
pfi:x as the ith element.
Usually, in describing the function represented by a
sequence, we shall give its overall effect rather than show
how its controlling operator achieves that effect. Thus
we would simply write
( p < C O N S , f l . . . . . fn>):x = < ( f l : x ) . . . . . (fn:X)>

instead of the more detailed account above.
We need a controlling operator, C O M P , to give us
sequences representing the functional form composition.
We take p C O M P to be a primitive function such that,
for all objects x,
( p < C O M P , f i . . . . . fn>):X

= (jq:(f2:(.-- :(fn:X)...)))

for n _> 1.

(I am indebted to Paul McJones for his observation that
ordinary composition could be achieved by this primitive
function rather than by using two composition rules in
the basic semantics, as was done in an earlier paper

[21.)
Although F F P systems permit the definition and
investigation of new functional forms, it is to be expected
that most programming would use a fixed set of forms
(whose controlling operators are primitives), as in FP, so
that the algebraic laws for those forms could be employed, and so that a structured programming style could
be used based on those forms.
In addition to its use in defining functional forms,
metacomposition can be used to create recursive functions directly without the use of recursive definitions of
the form D e f f =- E ( f ) . For example, if p M L A S T nullotl*2 --+ lo2; applyo[1, tlo2], then p < M L A S T > last, where last:x -- x = <xl, ..., xn> --+ Xn; 3_. Thus the
operator < M L A S T > . w o r k s as follows:
p(<MLA S T > : < A , B > )
633

-- I x ( p M L A S T : < < M L A S T > , < A , B > > )

by metacomposition
= #(applyo[1, t l o 2 ] : < < M L A S T > , < A , B > > )
= #(apply:<<MLAST>,<B>>)
= #(<MLAST>:<B>)
= p(pMLAST:<<MLAST>,<B>>)
= ~(lo2:<<MLAST>,<B>>)
mn.

13.3.3 Summary of the properties of p and p. So far
we have shown how p maps atoms and sequences into
functions and how those functions map objects into
expressions. Actually, p and all F F P functions can be
extended so that they are defined for all expressions.
With such extensions the properties of p and/~ can be
summarized as follows:
1) # E [expressions ~ objects].
2) If x is an object,/~x = x.
3) If e is an expression and e = <el . . . . . en>, then
/~e -- <#el, ...,/ten>.
4) p E [expressions ---> ]expressions ---> expressions]].
5) For any expression e, pe --- p ~ e ) .
6) If x is an object and e an expression, then
px:e = px:~e).

7) If x and y are objects, then #(x:y) = #(px:y). In
words: the meaning o f an FFP application (x:y) is found
by applying px, the function represented by x, to y and
then finding the meaning of the resulting expression
(which is usually an object and is then its own meaning).
13.3.4 Cells, fetching, and storing. For a number of
reasons it is convenient to create functions which serve
as names. In particular, we shall need this facility in
describing the semantics of definitions in F F P systems.
To introduce naming functions, that is, the ability to
fetch the contents of a cell with a given name from a
store (a sequence of cells) and to store a cell with given
name and contents in such a sequence, we introduce
objects called cells and two new functional forms, fetch
and store.
Cells
A cell is a triple < C E L L , name, contents>. We use this
form instead of the pair <name, contents> so that ceils
can be distinguished from ordinary pairs.
Fetch
The functional form fetch takes an object n as its
parameter (n is customarily an atom serving as a name);
it is written ~'n (read "fetch n"). Its definition for objects
n and x is
"rn:x --- x = ~ ---> #; atom:x ~ 3-;
(l:x) = <CELL,n,c>---> c; l'notl:x,

where # is the atom "default." Thus ~'n (fetch n) applied
to a sequence gives the contents o f the first cell in the
sequence whose name is n; If there is no cell named n,
the result is default, # . Thus l'n is the name function for
the name n. (We assume that p F E T C H is the primitive
function such that p < F E T C H , n> -- Tn. Note that Tn
simply passes over elements in its operand that are not
cells.)
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 I
Number 8

Store and push, pop, purge
Like fetch, store takes an object n as its parameter; it
is written J,n ("store n"). When applied to a pair <x,y>,
where y is a sequence, ~,n removes the first cell named n
from y, if any, then creates a new cell named n with
contents x and appends it to y. Before defining ~n (store
n) we shall specify four auxiliary functional forms.
(These can be used in combination with fetch n and store
n to obtain multiple, named, LIFO stacks within a
storage sequence.) Two of these auxiliary forms are
specified by recursive functional equations; each takes
an object n as its parameter.
(cellname n) - atom --, F;
eqo[length, 3] ---> eqo[[CELL, h], [1, 2]]; P
(push n) - pair -->apndlo[[CELL, h, 1], 2]; ±
(pop n) - null --> qb;
(cellname n)o 1 ---> tl; apndlo [1, (pop n)otl]
(purge n) =- null ---> ~; (cellname n)o 1 ---> (purge n)otl;
apndlo[1, (purge n)otl]
~,n - pair --> (push n)o[1, (pop n)o2]; £
The above functional forms work as follows. For
x # ±, (cellname n):x is T i f x is a cell named n, otherwise
it is F. (pop n):y removes the first cell named n from a
sequence y; (purge n):y removes all cells named n from
y. (push n):<x,y> puts a cell named n with contents
x at the head of sequence y; ~n:<x,y> is
(push n):<x, (pop n):y>.
(Thus (push n):<x,y> = y' pushes x onto the top of
a "stack" named n in y'; x can be read by ~n:y' = x and
can be removed by (pop n):y'; thus Tno(pop n):y' is the
element below x in the stack n, provided there is more
than one cell named n in y'.)
13.3.5 Definitions in FFP systems. The semantics of
an F F P system depends on a fixed set o f definitions D
(a sequence of cells), just as an FP system depends on its
informally given set of def'mitions. Thus the semantic
function It depends on D; altering D gives a new It' that
reflects the altered definitions. We have represented D
as an object because in AST systems (Section 14) we
shall want to transform D by applying functions to it and
to fetch data from i t - - i n addition to using it as the source
of function definitions in FFP semantics.
If < C E L L , n,c> is the first cell named n in the sequence D (and n is an atom) then it has the same effect
as the FP definition Def n - pc, that is, the meaning of
(n:x) will be the same as that o f Oc:x. Thus for example,
if < C E L L , C O N S T , < C O M P , 2 , 1 > > is the first cell in D
named C O N S T , then it has the same effect as
Def C O N S T =- 201, and the F F P system with that D
would fred
It(CONST:<<x,y>,z>) = y
and consequently
It(<CONST, A > : B ) = A.
In general, in an FFP system with definitions D, the
meaning of an application o f the form (atom:x) is de634

pendent on D; if Tatom:D # # (that is, atom is defined
in D) then its meaning is It(c:x), where c = Tatom:D, the
contents o f the first cell in D named atom. If ~atom:D
= # , then atom is not defined in D and either atom is
primitive, i.e. the system knows how to compute patom:x,
and It(atom:x) = It(patom:x), otherwise It(atom:x) = ±.

13.4 Formal Semantics for FFP Systems
We assume that a set A of atoms, a set D of definitions, a set P C A of primitive atoms and the primitive
functions they represent have all been chosen. We assume that pa is the primitive function represented by a
if a belongs to P, and that pa = ± if a belongs to Q, the
set o f atoms in A-P that are not defined in D. Although
p is defined for all expressions (see 13.3.3), the formal
semantics uses its definition only on P and Q. The
functions that p assigns to other expressions x are implicitly determined and applied in the following semantic
rules for evaluating #(x:y). The above choices of A and
D, and of P and the associated primitive functions determine the objects, expressions, and the semantic function #n for an F F P system. (We regard D as fixed and
write It for ltD.) We assume D is a sequence and that ~'y:D
can be computed (by the function ~'y as given in Section
13.3.4) for any atomy. With these assumptions we define
# as the least fixed point of the functional % where the
function ,it is defined as follows for any function # (for
all expressions x, xi, y, yi, z, and w):
(~'it)x = x ~ A ~ x;
x = <xl, ..., Xn> --"><gXl . . . . . ItXn>;
x =

(y:z)

--,

( y E A & (~'y:D) = # --~ It((py)(itz));
y E A & (l'y:D) -- w ~ #(w:z);
y = <yl ..... yn>---> It(yl:<y,z>); It(ity:z)); ±
The above description of It expands the operator of an
application by definitions and by metacomposition before evaluating the operand. It is assumed that predicates
like "x ~ A" in the above definition o f ~'# are Zpreserving (e.g., " ± E A" has the value ±) and that the
conditional expression itself is also ±-preserving. Thus
(Tit)± - £ and (Tit)(±:z) - ±. This concludes the semantics of FFP systems.

14. Applicative State Transition Systems
(AST Systems)
14.1 Introduction
This section sketches a class o f systems mentioned
earlier as alternatives to von Neumann systems. It must
be emphasized again that these applicative state transition systems are put forward not as practical programming systems in their present form, but as examples of
a class in which applicative style programming is made
available in a history sensitive, but non-von N e u m a n n
system. These systems are loosely coupled to states and
depend on an underlying applicative system for both
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 l
Number 8

their programming language and the description of their
state transitions. The underlying applicative system of
the AST system described below is an FFP system, but
other applicative systems could also be used.
To understand the reasons for the structure of AST
systems, it is helpful first to review the basic structure of
a v o n Neumann system, Algol, observe its limitations,
and compare it with the structure of AST systems. After
that review a minimal AST system is described; a small,
top-down, self-protecting system program for file maintenance and running user programs is given, with directions for installing it in the AST system and for running
an example user program. The system program uses
"name functions" instead of conventional names and the
user may do so too. The section concludes with subsections discussing variants of AST systems, their general
properties, and naming systems.
14.2 The Structure of Algol Compared to That of AST
Systems
An Algol program is a sequence of statements, each
representing a transformation of the Algol state, which
is a complex repository of information about the status
of various stacks, pointers, and variable mappings of
identifiers onto values, etc. Each statement communicates with this constantly changing state by means of
complicated protocols peculiar to itself and even to its
different parts (e.g., the protocol associated with the
variable x depends on its occurrence on the left or right
of an assignment, in a declaration, as a parameter, etc.).
It is as if the Algol state were a complex "store" that
communicates with the Algol program through an enormous "cable" of many specialized wires. The complex
communications protocols of this cable are fixed and
include those for every statement type. The "meaning"
of an Algol program must be given in terms of the total
effect of a vast number of communications with the state
via the cable and its protocols (plus a means for identifying the output and inserting the input into the state).
By comparison with this massive cable to the Algol
state/store, the cable that is the von Neumann bottleneck
of a computer is a simple, elegant concept.
Thus Algol statements are not expressions representing state-to-state functions that are built up by the use of
orderly combining forms from simpler state-to-state
functions. Instead they are complex messages with context-dependent parts that nibble away at the state. Each
part transmits information to and from the state over the
cable by its own protocols. There is no provision for
applying general functions to the whole state and thereby
making large changes in it. The possibility of large,
powerful transformations of the state S by function
application, S---, f.'S, is in fact inconceivable in the von
Neumann--cable and protocol--context: there could be
no assurance that the new state f:S would match the
cable and its fLxed protocols unless f is restricted to the
tiny changes allowed by the cable in the first place.
We want a computing system whose semantics does
635

not depend on a host of baroque protocols for communicating with the state, and we want to be able to make
large transformations in the state by the application of
general functions. AST systems provide one way of
achieving these goals. Their semantics has two protocols
for getting information from the state: (1) get from it the
definition of a function to be applied, and (2) get the
whole state itself. There is one protocol for changing the
state: compute the new state by function application.
Besides these communications with the state, AST semantics is applicative (i.e. FFP). It does not depend on
state changes because the state does not change at all
during a computation. Instead, the result of a computation is output and a new state. The structure of an AST
state is slightly restricted by one of its protocols: It must
be possible to identify a definition (i.e. cell) in it. Its
structure--it is a sequence--is far simpler than that of
the Algol state.
Thus the structure of AST systems avoids the complexity and restrictions of the von Neumann state (with
its communications protocols) while achieving greater
power and freedom in a radically different and simpler
framework.
14.3 Structure of an AST System
An AST system is made up of three elements:
1) An applicative subsystem (such as an FFP system).
2) A state D that is the set of definitions of the
applicative subsystem.
3) A set of transition rules that describe how inputs
are transformed into outputs and how the state D is
changed.
The programming language of an AST system is just
that of its applicative subsystem. (From here on we shall
assume that the latter is an FFP system.) Thus AST
systems can use the FP programming style we have
discussed. The applicative subsystem cannot change the
state D and it does not change during the evaluation of
an expression. A new state is computed along with output
and replaces the old state when output is issued. (Recall
that a set of definitions D is a sequence of cells; a cell
name is the name of a defined function and its contents
is the defining expression. Here, however, some cells
may name data rather than functions; a data name n will
be used in l'n (fetch n) whereas a function name will be
used as an operator itself.)
We give below the transition rules for the elementary
AST system we shall use for examples of programs.
These are perhaps the simplest of many possible transition rules that could determine the behavior of a great
variety of AST systems.
14.3.1 Transition rules for an elementary AST system. When the system receives an input x, it forms the
application (SYSTEM:x) and then proceeds to obtain its
meaning in the FFP subsystem, using the current state
D as the set of definitions. S Y S T E M is the distinguished
name of a function defined in D (i.e. it is the "system
program"). Normally the result is a pair
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

#(SYSTEM:x) = < o , d >
where o is the system output that results from input x
and d becomes the new state D for the system's next
input. Usually d will be a copy or partly changed copy
of the old state. If#(SYSTEM:x) is not a pair, the output
is an error message and the state remains unchanged.

14.3.2 Transition rules: exception conditions and
startup. Once an input has been accepted, our system
will not accept another (except <RESET, x>, see below)
until an output has been issued and the new state, if any,
installed. The system will accept the input <RESET, x>
at any time. There are two cases: (a) If S Y S T E M is
defmed in the current state D, then the system aborts its
current computation without altering D and treats x as
a new normal input; (b) if S Y S T E M is not defined in D,
then x is appended to D as its first element. (This ends
the complete description of the transition rules for our
elementary AST system.)
If S Y S T E M is defmed in D it can always prevent
any change in its own definition. If it is not defined,
an ordinary input x will produce #(SYSTEM:x) = &
and the transition rules yield an error message and
an unchanged state; on the other hand, the input
<RESET, <CELL,SYSTEM, s>> will define S Y S T E M
to be s.
14.3.3 Program access to the state; the function
ODEF$. Our F F P subsystem is required to have one new
primitive function, defs, named DEFS such that for any
object x ~ ±,
defs:x = pDEFS:x = D
where D is the current state and set o f definitions of the
AST system. This function allows programs access to the
whole state for any purpose, including the essential one
o f computing the successor state.
14.4 An Example of a System Program
The above description of our elementary AST system,
plus the FFP subsystem and the FP primitives and
functional forms of earlier sections, specify a complete
history-sensitive computing system. Its input and output
behavior is limited by its simple transition rules, but
otherwise it is a powerful system once it is equipped with
a suitable set of definitions. As an example of its use we
shall describe a small system program, its installation,
and operation.
Our example system program will handle queries and
updates for a file it maintains, evaluate FFP expressions,
run general user programs that do not damage the file or
the state, and allow authorized users to change the set of
definitions and the system program itself. All inputs it
accepts will be o f the form <key, input> where key is a
code that determines both the input class (system-change,
expression, program, query, update) and also the identity
of the user and his authority to use the system for the
given input class. We shall not specify a format for key.
Input is the input itself, of the class given by key.
14.4.1 General plan of the system program. The state
636

D of our AST system will contain the definitions of all
nonprimitive functions needed for the system program
and for users' programs. (Each definition is in a cell o f
the sequence D.) In addition, there will be a cell in D
named FILE with contents file, which the system maintains. We shall give FP definitions of functions and later
show how to get them into the system in their F F P form.
The transition rules make the input the operand of
SYSTEM, but our plan is to use name-functions to refer
to data, so the first thing we shall do with the input is to
create two cells named K E Y and I N P U T with contents
key and input and append these to D. This sequence of
cells has one each for key, input, and -file; it will be the
operand o f our main function called subsystem. Subsystem can then obtain key by applying ~KEY to its operand, etc. Thus the definition

Def system -- pair--> subsystemoj~ [NONPAIR, defs]
where

f =- ~INPUTo[2, ~KEyoI1, defs]]
causes the system to output NONPAIR and leave the
state unchanged if the input is not a pair. Otherwise, if
it is <key, input>, then

f'.<key, input> = <<CELL,INPUT, input>,
<CELL,KEY, key>, dl ..... d.>
where D = < d l . . . . . dn>. (We might have constructed a
different operand than the one above, one with just three
cells, for key, input, and file. We did not do so because
real programs, unlike subsystem, would contain many
name functions referring to data in the state, and this
"standard" construction of the operand would suffice
then as well.)
14.4.2 The "subsystem" function. We now give the
FP definition of the function subsystem, followed by
brief explanations o f its six cases and auxiliary functions.
Def subsystem ---

is-system-changeo TK E Y ---, [report-change, apply ]o[ ~l N P U T, defs];
is-expressiono~'KE Y --~ ['[I N P U T, clefs];
is-programo TK E Y--~ system-checkoapplyo[ ~l N P UT, defs];
is-queryo'~KE Y --> [query-response oH1NPUT, TFILE], clefs];
is-update oI"KE Y --,
[report-update, J,FILEo[update, defs]]
o[~INPUT, TF1LE];
[report-erroro[~KEY,'~lNPUT], defs].

This subsystem has five "p ~ j~" clauses and a final
default function, for a total of six classes of inputs; the
treatment of each class is given below. Recall that the
operand of subsystem is a sequence o f cells containing
key, input, and file as well as all the defined functions o f
D, and that subsystem:operand =<output, newstate>.
Default inputs. In this case the result is given by the
last (default) function of the definition when key does
not satisfy any of the preceding clauses. The output is
report-error: <key, input>. The state is unchanged since
it is given by defs:operand = D. (We leave to the reader's
imagination what the function report-error will generate
from its operand.)
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

System-change inputs. When
is-system-change o~KE Y:operand =
is-system-change:key = T,

key specifies that the user is authorized to make a system
change and that input = ~INPUT:operand represents a
f u n c t i o n f t h a t is to be applied to D to produce the new
statef:D. (Of coursef:D can be a useless new state; no
constraints are placed on it.) The output is a report,
namely report-change: <input,D>.
Expression inputs. When is-expression:key = T, the
system understands that the output is to be the meaning
of the FFP expression input; ~INPUT:operand produces
it and it is evaluated, as are all expressions. The state is
unchanged.
Program inputs and system self-protection. When isprogram:key = T, both the output and new state are
given by (pinput):D =<output, newstate>. If newstate
contains file in suitable condition and the definitions of
system and other protected functions, then
system-check: <output,newstate> =<output, newstate>.
Otherwise, system-check: <output, newstate>
= <error-report,D>.
Although program inputs can make major, possibly disastrous changes in the state when it produces newstate,
system-check can use any criteria to either allow it to
become the actual new state or to keep the old. A more
sophisticated system-check might correct only prohibited
changes in the state. Functions of this sort are possible
because they can always access the old state for comparison with the new state-to-be and control what state
transition will finally be allowed.
File query inputs. If is-query:key -- T, the function
query-response is designed to produce the output =
answer to the query input from its operand <input~file>.
File update inputs. If is-update:key = T, input specifies a f'de transaction understood by the function update,
which computes updated-file = update: <input,file>. Thus
~FILE has <updated-file, D> as its operand and thus
stores the updated file in the cell FILE in the new state.
The rest of the state is unchanged. The function reportupdate generates the output from its operand
<input,file>.
14.4.3 Installing the system program. We have described the function called system by some FP definitions
(using auxiliary functions whose behavior is only indicated). Let us suppose that we have FP definitions for
all the nonprimitive functions required. Then each definition can be converted to give the name and contents of
a cell in D (of course this conversion itself would be done
by a better system). The conversion is accomplished by
changing each FP function name to its equivalent atom
(e.g., update becomes UPDA TE) and by replacing functional forms by sequences whose first member is the
controlling function for the particular form. Thus
~FILEo[update, defs] is converted to
<COMP,<STORE, FILE>,
<CONS, UPDATE, DEFS>>,
637

and the FP function is the same as that represented by
the FFP object, provided that update = pUPDA TE and
COMP, STORE, and CONS represent the controlling
functions for composition, store, and construction.
All FP definitions needed for our system can be
converted to cells as indicated above, giving a sequence
Do. We assume that the AST system has an empty state
to start with, hence S Y S T E M is not defined. We want to
define S Y S T E M initially so that it will install its next
input as the state; having done so we can then input Do
and all our definitions will be installed, including our
program--system--itseff. To accomplish this we enter
our first input
<RESET, <CELL, SYSTEM, loader>>
where loader = <CONS, <CONST, DONE>,ID>.
Then, by the transition rule for R E S E T w h e n S Y S T E M
is undefined in D, the cell in our input is put at the
head of D = ~, thus defining p S Y S T E M - ploader [DONE, id]. Our second input is Do, the set of definitions
we wish to become the state. The regular transition rule
causes the AST system to evaluate
#(SYSTEM:Do) -- [DONE, id]:Do = <DONE, Do>. Thus
the output from our second input is DONE, the new
state is Do, and p S Y S T E M is now our system program
(which only accepts inputs of the form <key, input>).
Our next task is to load the file (we are given an
initial value file). To load it we input a program into the
newly installed system that contains-file as a constant
and stores it in the state; the input is
<program-key, [DONE, store-file]> where

pstore-file =-- ~FILEo[file, id].
Program-key identifies [DONE, store-file] as a program
to be applied to the state Do to give the output and new
state D1, which is:
pstore-file:Do = ~FILEo[file, id]:D0,
or Do with a cell containing file at its head. The output
is DONE:Do = DONE. We assume that system-check
will pass <DONE, D1> unchanged. FP expressions have
been used in the above in place of the FFP objects they
denote, e.g. DONE for <CONST, DONE>.
14.4.4 Using the system. We have not said how the
system's file, queries or updates are structured, so we
cannot give a detailed example of file operations. However, the structure of subsystem shows clearly how the
system's response to queries and updates depends on the
functions query-response, update, and report-update.
Let us suppose that matrices m, n named M, and N
are stored in D and that the function MM described
earlier is defined in D. Then the input

<expression-key, (MMo [~M, ~N]o D EFS:#)>
would give the product of the two matrices as output and
an unchanged state. Expression-key identifies the application as an expression to be evaluated and since defs:#
= D and [tM, ~'N]:D -- <m,n>, the value of the expression is the result MM:<m,n>, which is the output.
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 2 l
Number 8

Our miniature system program has no provision for
giving control to a user's program to process many
inputs, but it would not be difficult to give it that
capability while still monitoring the user's program with
the option of taking control back.
14.5 Variants of AST Systems
A major extension of the AST systems suggested
abow; would provide combining forms, "system forms,"
for building a new AST system from simpler, component
AST systems. That is, a system form would take AST
systems as parameters and generate a new AST system,
just as a functional form takes functions as parameters
and generates new functions. These system forms would
have properties like those of functional forms and would
become the "operations" of a useful "algebra of systems"
in much the same way that functional forms are the
"operations" of the algebra of programs. However, the
problem of finding useful system forms is much more
difficult, since they must handle RESETS, match inputs
and outputs, and combine history-sensitive systems
rather than fixed functions.
Moreover, the usefulness or need for system forms is
less clear than that for functional forms. The latter are
essential for building a great variety of functions from
an initial primitive set, whereas, even without system
forms, the facilities for building AST systems are already
so rich that one could build virtually any system (with
the general input and output properties allowed by the
given AST scheme). Perhaps system forms would be
useful for building systems with complex input and
output arrangements.
14.6 Remarks About AST Systems
As I have tiled to indicate above, there can be
innumerable variations in the ingredients of an AST
system--how it operates, how it deals with input and
output, how and when it produces new states, and so on.
In any case, a number of remarks apply to any reasonable
AST system:
a) A state transition occurs once per major computation and can have useful mathematical properties. State
transitions are not involved in the tiniest details of a
computation as in conventional languages; thus the linguistic yon Neumann bottleneck has been eliminated.
No complex "cable" or protocols are needed to communicate with the state.
b) Programs are written in an applicative language
that can accommodate a great range of changeable parts,
parts whose power and flexibility exceed that of any von
Neumann language so far. The word-at-a-time style is
replaced by an applicative style; there is no division of
programming into a world of expressions and a world of
statements. Programs can be analyzed and optimized by
an algebra of programs.
c) Since the state cannot change during the computation of system:x, there are no side effects. Thus independent applications can be evaluated in parallel.
638

d) By defining appropriate functions one can, I believe, introduce major new features at any time, using
the same framework. Such features must be built into
the framework of a v o n Neumann language. I have in
mind such features as: "stores" with a great variety of
naming systems, types and type checking, communicating parallel processes, nondeterminacy and Dijkstra's
"guarded command" constructs [8], and improved methods for structured programming.
e) The framework of an AST system comprises the
syntax and semantics of the underlying applicative system plus the system framework sketched above. By
current standards, this is a tiny framework for a language
and is the only fixed part of the system.
14.7 Naming Systems in AST and von Neumann
Models
In an AST system, naming is accomplished by functions as indicated in Section 13.3.3. Many useful functions for altering and accessing a store can be defined
(e.g. push, pop, purge, typed fetch, etc.). All these definitions and their associated naming systems can be introduced without altering the AST framework. Different
kinds of "stores" (e.g., with "typed cells") with individual
naming systems can be used in one program. A cell in
one store may contain another entire store.
The important point about AST naming systems is
that they utilize the functional nature of names (Reynolds' OEDANr~N [19] also does so to some extent within
a v o n Neumann framework). Thus name functions can
be composed and combined with other functions by
functional forms. In contrast, functions and names in
von Neumann languages are usually disjoint concepts
and the function-like nature of names is almost totally
concealed and useless, because a) names cannot be applied as functions; b) there are no general means to
combine names with other names and functions; c) the
objects to which name functions apply (stores) are not
accessible as objects.
The failure of von Neumann languages to treat
names as functions may be one of their more important
weaknesses. In any case, the ability to use names as
functions and stores as objects may turn out to be a
useful and important programming concept, one which
should be thoroughly explored.

15. Remarks About Computer Design

The dominance of von Neumann languages has left
designers with few intellectual models for practical computer designs beyond variations of the von Neumann
computer. Data flow models [1] [7] [13] are one alternative class of history-sensitive models. The substitution
rules of lambda-calculus based languages present serious
problems for the machine designer. Berkling [3] has
developed a modified lambda calculus that has three
kinds of applications and that makes renaming of vailCommunications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

ables unnecessary. He has developed a machine to evaluate expressions of this language. Further experience is
needed to show how sound a basis this language is for
an effective programming style and how efficient his
machine can be.
Mag6 [15] has developed a novel applicative machine
built from identical components (of two kinds). It evaluates, directly, FP-like and other applicative expressions
from the bottom up. It has no von Neumann store and
no address register, hence no bottleneck; it is capable of
evaluating many applications in parallel; its built-in operations resemble FP operators more than von Neumann
computer operations. It is the farthest departure from
the yon Neumann computer that I have seen.
There are numerous indications that the applicative
style of programming can become more powerful than
the von Neumann style. Therefore it is important for
programmers to develop a new class of history-sensitive
models of computing systems that embody such a style
and avoid the inherent efficiency problems that seem to
attach to lambda-calculus based systems. Only when
these models and their applicative languages have proved
their superiority over conventional languages will we
have the economic basis to develop the new kind of
computer that can best implement them. Only then,
perhaps, will we be able to fully utilize large-scale integrated circuits in a computer design not limited by the
von Neumann bottleneck.

16.

Summary

The fifteen preceding sections of this paper can be
summarized as follows.
Section 1. Conventional programming languages
are large, complex, and inflexible. Their limited expressive power is inadequate to justify their size and cost.
Section 2. The models of computing systems that
underlie programming languages fall roughly into three
classes: (a) simple operational models (e.g., Turing machines), (b) applicative models (e.g., the lambda calculus), and (c) von Neumann models (e.g., conventional
computers and programming languages). Each class of
models has an important difficulty: The programs of
class (a) are inscrutable; class (b) models cannot save
information from one program to the next; class (c)
models have unusable foundations and programs that
are conceptually unhelpful.
Section 3. Von Neumann computers are built
around a bottleneck: the word-at-a-time tube connecting
the CPU and the store. Since a program must make
its overall change in the store by pumping vast numbers
of words back and forth through the von Neumann
bottleneck, we have grown up with a style of programming that concerns itself with this word-at-a-time traffic
through the bottleneck rather than with the larger conceptual units of our problems.
Section 4. Conventional languages are based on the
639

programming style of the von Neumann computer. Thus
variables = storage cells; assignment statements = fetching, storing, and arithmetic; control statements = jump
and test instructions. The symbol ".----" is the linguistic
von Neumann bottleneck. Programming in a convent i o n a l ~ v o n Neumann--language still concerns itself
with the word-at-a-time traffic through this slightly more
sophisticated bottleneck. Von Neumann languages also
split programming into a world of expressions and a
world of statements; the first of these is an orderly world,
the second is a disorderly one, a world that structured
programming has simplified somewhat, but without attacking the basic problems of the split itself and of the
word-at-a-time style of conventional languages.
Section 5. This section compares a v o n Neumann
program and a functional program for inner product. It
illustrates a number of problems of the former and
advantages of the latter: e.g., the von Neumann program
is repetitive and word-at-a-time, works only for two
vectors named a and b of a given length n, and can only
be made general by use of a procedure declaration,
which has complex semantics. The functional program
is nonrepetitive, deals with vectors as units, is more
hierarchically constructed, is completely general, and
creates "housekeeping" operations by composing highlevel housekeeping operators. It does not name its arguments, hence it requires no procedure declaration.
Section 6. A programming language comprises a
framework plus some changeable parts. The framework
of a von Neumann language requires that most features
must be built into it; it can accommodate only limited
changeable parts (e.g., user-defined procedures) because
there must be detailed provisions in the "state" and its
transition rules for all the needs of the changeable parts,
as well as for all the features built into the framework.
The reason the von Neumann framework is so inflexible
is that its semantics is too closely coupled to the state:
every detail of a computation changes the state.
Section 7. The changeable parts of von Neumann
languages have little expressive power; this is why most
of the language must be built into the framework. The
lack of expressive power results from the inability of von
Neumann languages to effectively use combining forms
for building programs, which in turn results from the
split between expressions and statements. Combining
forms are at their best in expressions, but in von Neumann languages an expression can only produce a single
word; hence expressive power in the world of expressions
is mostly lost. A further obstacle to the use of combining
forms is the elaborate use of naming conventions.
Section 8. APL is the first language not based on
the lambda calculus that is not word-at-a-time and uses
functional combining forms. But it still retains many of
the problems of von Neumann languages.
Section 9. Von Neumann languages do not have
useful properties for reasoning about programs. Axiomatic and denotational semantics are precise tools for
describing and understanding conventional programs,
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

but they only talk about them and cannot alter their
ungainly properties. Unlike von Neumann languages,
the language of ordinary algebra is suitable both for
stating its laws and for transforming an equation into its
solution, all within the "language."
Section 10. In a history-sensitive language, a program can affect the behavior of a subsequent one by
changing some store which is saved by the system. Any
such language requires some kind of state transition
semantics. But it does not need semantics closely coupled
to states in which the state changes with every detail of
the computation. "Applicative state transition" (AST)
systems are proposed as history-sensitive alternatives to
von Neumann systems. These have: (a) loosely coupled
state-transition semantics in which a transition occurs
once per major computation; (b) simple states and transition rules; (c) an underlying applicative system with
simple "reduction" semantics; and (d) a programming
language and state transition rules both based on the
underlying applicative system and its semantics. The
next four sections describe the elements of this approach
to non-von Neumann language and system design.
Section 11. A class of informal functional programming (FP) systems is described which use no variables.
Each system is built from objects, functions, functional
forms, and definitions. Functions map objects into objects. Functional forms combine existing functions to
form new ones. This section lists examples of primitive
functions and functional forms and gives sample programs. It discusses the limitations and advantages of FP
systems.
Section 12. An "algebra of programs" is described
whose variables range over the functions of an FP system
and whose "operations" are the functional forms of the
system. A list of some twenty-four laws of the algebra is
followed by an example proving the equivalence of a
nonrepetitive matrix multiplication program and a recursive one. The next subsection states the results of two
"expansion theorems" that "solve" two classes of equations. These solutions express the "unknown" function
in such equations as an infinite conditional expansion
that constitutes a case-by-case description of its behavior
and immediately gives the necessary and sufficient conditions for termination. These results are used to derive
a "recursion theorem" and an "iteration theorem," which
provide ready-made expansions for some moderately
general and useful classes of "linear" equations. Examples of the use of these theorems treat: (a) correctness
proofs for recursive and iterative factorial functions, and
(b) a proof of equivalence of two iterative programs. A
final example deals with a "quadratic" equation and
proves that its solution is an idempotent function. The
next subsection gives the proofs of the two expansion
theorems.
The algebra associated with FP systems is compared
with the corresponding algebras for the lambda calculus
and other applicative systems. The comparison shows
some advantages to be drawn from the severely restricted
640

FP systems, as compared with the much more powerful
classical systems. Questions are suggested about algorithmic reduction of functions to infinite expansions and
about the use of the algebra in various "lazy evaluation"
schemes.
Section 13. This section describes formal functional
programming (FFP) systems that extend and make precise the behavior of FP systems. Their semantics are
simpler than that of classical systems and can be shown
to be consistent by a simple fixed-point argument.
Section 14. This section compares the structure of
Algol with that of applicative state transition (AST)
systems. It describes an AST system using an FFP system
as its applicative subsystem. It describes the simple state
and the transition rules for the system. A small selfprotecting system program for the AST system is described, and how it can be installed and used for file
maintenance and for running user programs. The section
briefly discusses variants of AST systems and functional
naming systems that can be defined and used within an
AST system.
Section 15. This section briefly discusses work on
applicative computer designs and the need to develop
and test more practical models of applicative systems as
the future basis for such designs.

Acknowledgments. In earlier work relating to this
paper I have received much valuable help and many
suggestions from Paul R. McJones and Barry K. Rosen.
I have had a great deal of valuable help and feedback in
preparing this paper. James N. Gray was exceedingly
generous with his time and knowledge in reviewing the
first draft. Stephen N. Zilles also gave it a careful reading.
Both made many valuable suggestions and criticisms at
this difficult stage. It is a pleasure to acknowledge my
debt to them. I also had helpful discussions about the
first draft with Ronald Fagin, Paul R. McJones, and
James H. Morris, Jr. Fagin suggested a number of improvements in the proofs of theorems.
Since a large portion of the paper contains technical
material, I asked two distinguished computer scientists
to referee the third draft. David J. Giles and John C.
Reynolds were kind enough to accept this burdensome
task. Both gave me large, detailed sets of corrections and
overall comments that resulted in many improvements,
large and small, in this final version (which they have
not had an opportunity to review). I am truly grateful
for the generous time and care they devoted to reviewing
this paper.
Finally, I also sent copies of the third draft to Gyula
A. Mag6, Peter Naur, and John H. Williams. They were
kind enough to respond with a number of extremely
helpful comments and corrections. Geoffrey A. Frank
and Dave Tolle at the University of North Carolina
reviewed Mag6's copy and pointed out an important
error in the definition of the semantic function of FFP
systems. My grateful thanks go to all these kind people
for their help.
Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8

References

I. Arvind, and Gostelow, K.P. A new interpreter for data flow
schemas and its implications for computer architecture. Tech. Rep.
No. 72, Dept. Comptr. Sci., U. of California, Irvine, Oct. 1975.
2. Backus, J. Programming language semantics and closed
applicative languages. Conf. Record ACM Symp. on Principles of
Programming Languages, Boston, Oct. 1973, 71-86.
3. Berkling, K.J. Reduction languages for reduction machines.
Interner Bericht ISF-76-8, Gesellschaft f'dr Mathematik und
Datenverarbeitung MBH, Bonn, Sept. 1976.
4. Burge, W.H. Recursive Programming Techniques. AddisonWesley, Reading, Mass., 1975.
5. Church, A. The Calculi of Lambda-Conversion. Princeton U.
Press, Princeton, N.J., 1941.
6. Curry, H.B., and Feys, R. Combinatory Logic, Vol. 1. NorthHolland Pub. Co., Amsterdam, 1958.
7. Dennis, J.B. First version of a data flow procedure language.
Tech. Mem. No. 61, Lab. for Comptr. Sci., M.I.T., Cambridge, Mass.,
May 1973.
8. Dijkstra, E.W. ,4 Discipline of Programming. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1976.
9. Friedman, D.P., and Wise, D.S. CONS should not evaluate its
arguments. In Automata, Languages and Programming, S. Michaelson
and R. Milner, Eds., Edinburgh U. Press, Edinburgh, 1976, pp.
257-284.
10. Henderson, P., and Morris, J.H. Jr. A lazy evaluator. Conf.
Record Third ACM Symp. on Principles of Programming Languages,
Atlanta, Ga., Jan. 1976, pp. 95-103.
I1. Hoare, C.A.R. An axiomatic basis for computer programming.
Comm. ,4CM 12, 10 (Oct. 1969), 576-583.

641

12. Iverson, K. A Programming Language. Wiley, New York, 1962.
13. Kosinski, P. A data flow programming language. Rep. RC 4264,
IBM T.J. Watson Research Ctr., Yorktown Heights, N.Y., March
1973.
14. Landin, P.J. The mechanical evaluation of expressions. Computer
J. 6, 4 (1964), 308-320.
15. Mag6, G.A. A network of microprocessors to execute reduction
languages. To appear in Int. J. Comptr. and Inform. Sci.
16. Manna, Z., Ness, S., and Vuillemin, J. Inductive methods for
proving properties of programs. Comm..4 CM 16,8 (Aug. 1973)
491-502.
17. McCarthy, J. Recursive functions of symbolic expressions and
their computation by machine, Pt. 1. Comm. ,4CM 3, 4 (April 1960),
184-195.
18. MeJones, P. A Church-Rosser property of closed applicative
languages. Rep. RJ 1589, IBM Res. Lab., San Jose, Calif., May 1975.
19. Reynolds, J.C. GEDANKEN--asimple typeless language based on
the principle of completeness and the reference concept. Comm.
ACM 13, 5 (May 1970), 308-318.
20. Reynolds, J..C. Notes on a lattice-theoretic approach to the theory
of computation. Dept. Syst. and Inform. Sci., Syracuse U., Syracuse,
N.Y., 1972.
21. Scott, D. Outline of a mathematical theory of computation. Proc.
4th Princeton Conf. on Inform. Sci. and Syst., 1970.
22. Scott, D. Lattice-theoretic models for various type-free calculi.
Proc. Fourth Int. Congress for Logic, Methodology, and the
Philosophy of Science, Bucharest, 1972.
23. Scott, D., and Strachey, C. Towards a mathematical semantics
for computer languages. Proc. Symp. on Comptrs. and Automata,
Polytechnic Inst. of Brooklyn, 1971.

Communications
of
the ACM

August 1978
Volume 21
Number 8