The system is still a crude prototype and a proof of concept. Improvements and
extension for the system are amply available in several fields of study.

\subsection{Simulation}
An additional simulation view to the \gls{mTask}-\gls{EDSL} could be added that
works in the same way as the existing \gls{C}-backed simulation. It simulates
the bytecode interpretation. Moreover, it would also be possible to let the
simulator function as a real device, thus handling all communication through
the existing \gls{SDS}-based systems. At the moment the \emph{POSIX}-client is
the reference client and contains debugging code.  Adding a simulation view to
the system allows for easy interactive debugging.  However, it might not be
easy to devise a simulation tool that accurately simulates the \gls{mTask}
system on some levels. The semantics can be simulated but timing and peripheral
input/output are more difficult to simulate properly.

\subsection{Optimization}
\paragraph{Multitasking on the client:}
True multitasking could be added to the client software. This allows
\gls{mTask}-\glspl{Task} to run truly parallel. All \gls{mTask}-\glspl{Task}
get slices of execution time and will each have their own interpreter state
instead of a single system-wide state which is reset after am \gls{mTask}
finishes. This does require separate stacks for each \gls{Task} and therefore
increases the system requirements of the client software. However, it could be
implemented as a compile-time option and exchanged during the handshake so that
the server knows the multithreading capabilities of the client. Multithreading
allows \glspl{Task} to be truly interruptible by other \glspl{Task}.
Furthermore, this allows for more fine-grained timing control of \glspl{Task}.

\paragraph{Optimizing the interpreter:}
Due to time constraints and focus, hardly any work has been done in the
interpreter. The current interpreter is a no nonsense stack machine. A lot of
improvements can be done in this part. For example, precomputed \emph{gotos}
can improve jumping to the correct part of the code corresponding to the
correct instruction.  Moreover, the stack currently consists of 16-bit values.
All operations work on 16-bit values and this simplifies the interpreter
implementation. A memory improvement can be made by converting the stack to
8-bit values. This does pose some problems since an equality instruction must
work on single-byte booleans \emph{and} two-byte integers. Adding specialized
instructions per word size could overcome this problem.

\subsection{Resources}
\paragraph{Resource analysis: }
Resource analysis during compilation can be useful to determine if an
\gls{mTask}-\gls{Task} is suitable for a specific device. If the device does
not contain the correct peripherals --- such as an \gls{LCD} --- then the
\gls{mTask}-\gls{Task} should be rejected and feedback to the user must be
given. It might even be possible to do this statically on the type level. The
current system does not have any of this built-in. Sending a \gls{Task} that
uses the \gls{LCD} to a device not containing one will result in the device
just skipping the \gls{LCD} related instructions.

\paragraph{Extended resource analysis: }
The previous idea could be extended to the analysis of stack size and possibly
communication bandwidth. With this functionality ever more reliable fail-over
systems can be designed. When the system knows precise bounds it can allocate
more \glspl{Task} on a device whilst staying within safe memory bounds. The
resource allocation can be done at runtime within the backend itself or a
general backend can be devised that can calculate the resources needed for a
given \gls{mTask}. A specific \gls{mTask} cannot have multiple views at the
same time due to the restrictions of class based shallow embedding. It might
even be possible to encode the resource allocation in the type system itself
using forms of dependant types.

\subsection{Functionality}
\paragraph{Add more combinators: }
More \gls{Task}-combinators --- already existing in the \gls{iTasks}-system ---
could be added to the \gls{mTask}-system to allow for more fine-grained control
flow between \gls{mTask}-\glspl{Task}. In this way the new system follows the
\gls{TOP} paradigm even more and makes programming \gls{mTask}-\glspl{Task} for
\gls{TOP}-programmers more seamless. Some of the combinators require previously
mentioned extension such as the parallel combinator. Others might be achieved
using simple syntactic transformations.

\paragraph{Launch \glspl{Task} from a \gls{Task}:}
Currently the \gls{C}-view allows \glspl{Task} to launch other \glspl{Task}. In
the current system this type of logic has to take place on the server side.
Adding this functionality to the bytecode-view allows greater flexibility,
easier programming and less communication resources. Adding these semantics
requires modifications to the client software and extensions to the
communication protocol since relations between \glspl{Task} also need to be
encoded and communicated.

The \gls{SDS} functionality in the current system is bare. There is no easy way
of reusing an \gls{SDS} for another \gls{Task} on the same device or on another
device. Such functionality can be implemented in a crude way by tying the
\glspl{SDS} together in the \gls{iTasks} environment. However, this will result
in a slow updating system. Functionality for reusing shares from a device
should be added. This requires rethinking the storage because some typedness is
lost when the \gls{SDS} is stored after compilation. A possibility would be to
use runtime typing with \CI{Dynamic}s or the encoding technique currently used
for \CI{BCValue}s. Using \glspl{SDS} for multiple \glspl{Task} within one
device is solved when the previous point is implemented.

Another way of improving on \gls{SDS} handling is to separate \glspl{SDS} from
devices. In this implementation, the \gls{SDS} not only needs to know on which
device it is, but also which internal device \gls{SDS} id it has. A pro of
this technique is that the \gls{SDS} can be shared between \glspl{Task} that
are not defined in the same scope because they are separated. A con of this
implementation is that the mechanisms for implementing \glspl{SDS} have to be
more complex, they have to keep track of the devices containing or sharing an
\gls{SDS}. Moreover, when the \gls{SDS} is updated, all attached devices must
be updated which requires some extra work.

\subsection{Robustness}
\paragraph{Reconnect with lost devices:}
The robustness of the system can be greatly improved. Devices that lose
connection are not well supported in the current system. The device will stop
functioning and has to be emptied for a reconnect. \Glspl{Task} residing on a
device that disconnected should be kept on the server to allow a swift
reconnect and restoration of the \glspl{Task}. This holds the same for the
client software. The client drops all existing \glspl{Task} on a shutdown
request. An extra specialization of the shutdown could be added that drops the
connection but keeps the \glspl{Task} in memory. During the downtime the
\glspl{Task} can still be executed but publications need to be delayed. If the
same server connects to the client the delayed publications can be sent
anyways.

\paragraph{Reverse \gls{Task} sending:}
Furthermore, devices could send their current \glspl{Task} back to the
server to synchronize it. This allows interchanging servers without
interrupting the client. Allowing the client to send \glspl{Task} to the server
is something to handle with care because it can easily cause high bandwidth
usage.
