Skip to content

Independent Study: Traits: Composable Units of Behaviour

November 7, 2009

(This is one of a series of posts about papers I’m reading for an independent study with Prof. Evan Chang at the University of Colorado, Boulder. The format is similar to that of a review of a paper submitted to a computer science conference. There are already-published papers, so I’ll be writing with the benefit of hindsight, especially when the paper was published at least several years ago.)

Submission: Traits: Composable Units of Behaviour [PDF]

Please give a brief, 2-3 sentence summary of the main ideas of this paper:

If you start with the reasonable assumption that code reuse improves programmer productivity, an important question is how to increase code reuse. Historically, inheritance — both single and multiple — has been a mechanism for code reuse, in as much as it has allowed classes to be composed at least in part from other classes. Mixins solve some of the problems of single and multiple inheritance, but they don’t work well when a class uses two or more mixins containing identically-named methods. Traits solve the same problems as mixins, but don’t suffer from their limitations.

What is the strength of this paper (1-3 sentences):

Traits solve the problems of previous attempts to facilitate code reuse. Further, they suggest a style of designing software — as collections of traits (which ideally define only a single method) instead of collections of classes — that may be useful in its own right.

What is the weakness of this paper (1-3 sentences):

None noted.




The authors note that traits are inspired by mixins, and in one (arguably incorrect) sense, traits are merely an incremental improvement on mixins; however, the deficiencies the authors identify in mixins are real (and especially important for large, complex applications) and require solving, so the fact that traits aren’t light years ahead of mixins is irrelevant, as the improvements traits provide are necessary.


Yes. The refactoring example helps the authors make a stong case for traits.

Worth solving:

See my response about novelty above.


I’m confident in the material in this paper.

Detailed comments:

The notion that code reuse improves programmer productivity is non-controversial. A library of well-tested and widely-used classes in a language’s ecosystem provides not only implementations of common functionality (thereby relieving programmers of having to implement and test that functionality themselves) but also (because classes and methods are named) a common language for communication among programmers — both of which reduce “friction” during software development.

A problem for API designers is that code reuse in most common object-oriented languages is done at the level of the class definition — a client class T of the some API class U reuses U either by extending U or by otherwise referring to U (e.g. statically, as the type of a local variable, as the type of a member variable). This can lead to an undesirable decoupling of generic functionality, making it hard for programmers to discover reusable code. For example, in Java, to sort an object of the type of a class which implements java.util.List, one needs to know to use the sort method of the Collections class. Acquiring this knowledge isn’t necessarily onerous for a programmer, but it likely leads novice programmers to implement their own sorting methods. A language with mixins or traits does not have this problem. In such a language, a class C that can be sorted uses the mixin or trait that provides a generic sorting routine (as long as C provides whatever methods the mixin or trait requires [e.g. something akin to the compareTo of Java’s Comparable]), and discovering that C can be sorted is a matter of invoking an IDE’s method autocomplete feature or, absent IDE support, a cursory examination of the definition of C. This is similar to the problem of jungloid navigation, where a programmer knows what kind of object she wants, but doesn’t know how to get it, except in this case a programmer knows what she wants to do with an object (i.e. sort a list), but doesn’t know how to do it (i.e. call Collections.sort).

A little history on multiple inheritance, interfaces, and mixins. So far as I’ve been able to find, interfaces first appeared in Modula-2 (1978), where they’re called definition modules. From the Modula-3 report (I wasn’t able to find one for Modula-2): “An interface is a group of declarations. Declarations in interfaces are the same as in blocks, except that any variable initializations must be constant and procedure declarations must specify only the signature, not the body.” Modula-3 (1980s) also had multiple inheritance. Mixins first appeared in an OO extension to LISP (called Flavors [circa 1980]). Flavors fed into the Common Lisp Object System, where the concept of a Meta-Object Protocol was first implemented. Perl’s Moose is built atop Class::MOP, which was inspired by the CLOS MOP.


From → nuts n bolts

Leave a Comment

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: