We report a systematic comparative evaluation of two tierless language technologies for \gls{IOT} stacks: one for resource-rich sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK}), and one for resource-constrained sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK}).
The evaluation is based on four implementations of a typical smart campus application: two tierless and two \gls{PYTHON}-based tiered.
- %, with two targeting microprocessors and two targeting supersensors.
+ %, with two targeting microcontrollers and two targeting supersensors.
\begin{enumerate*}
\item We show that tierless languages have the potential to significantly reduce the development effort for \gls{IOT} systems, requiring 70\% less code than the tiered implementations. Careful analysis attributes this code reduction to reduced interoperation (e.g.\ two \glspl{EDSL} and one paradigm versus seven languages and two paradigms), automatically generated distributed communication, and powerful \gls{IOT} programming abstractions.
\item We show that tierless languages have the potential to significantly improve the reliability of \gls{IOT} systems, describing how \gls{CLEAN}\slash\gls{ITASK}/\gls{MTASK} maintains type safety, provides higher order failure management, and simplifies maintainability.
In a tierless language the developer writes the application as a single program. The code for different tiers is simultaneously checked by the compiler, and compiled to the required component languages. For example, Links compiles to HTML and JavaScript for the web client and to SQL on the server to interact with the database system. Tierless languages for \gls{IOT} stacks are more recent and less common, examples include
Potato \citep{troyer_building_2018} and \gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK}\slash\gls{MTASK} \citep{lubbers_interpreting_2019}.
-\Gls{IOT} sensor nodes may be microprocessors with very limited compute resources, or supersensors: resource-rich single board computers like a Raspberry Pi. A tierless language may target either class of sensor node, and microcontrollers are the more demanding target due to the limited resources, e.g.\ small memory, executing on bare metal \etc.
+\Gls{IOT} sensor nodes may be microcontrollers with very limited compute resources, or supersensors: resource-rich single board computers like a Raspberry Pi. A tierless language may target either class of sensor node, and microcontrollers are the more demanding target due to the limited resources, e.g.\ small memory, executing on bare metal \etc.
Potentially a tierless language both reduces the development effort and improves correctness as correct interoperation and communication is automatically generated by the compiler. A tierless language may, however, introduce other problems. How expressive is the language? That is, can it readily express the required functionality? How maintainable is the software? Is the generated code efficient in terms of time, space, and power?
-This paper reports a systematic comparative evaluation of two tierless language technologies for \gls{IOT} stacks: one targeting resource-constrained microprocessors, and the other resource-rich supersensors. The basis of the comparison is four implementations of a typical smart campus \gls{IOT} stack \citep{hentschel_supersensors:_2016}. Two implementations are conventional tiered \gls{PYTHON}-based stacks: \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS}. The other two implementations are tierless: \gls{CRS} and \gls{CWS}. Our work makes the following research contributions, and the key results are summarised, discussed, and quantified in \cref{sec_t4t:Conclusion}.
+This paper reports a systematic comparative evaluation of two tierless language technologies for \gls{IOT} stacks: one targeting resource-constrained microcontrollers, and the other resource-rich supersensors. The basis of the comparison is four implementations of a typical smart campus \gls{IOT} stack \citep{hentschel_supersensors:_2016}. Two implementations are conventional tiered \gls{PYTHON}-based stacks: \gls{PRS} and \gls{PWS}. The other two implementations are tierless: \gls{CRS} and \gls{CWS}. Our work makes the following research contributions, and the key results are summarised, discussed, and quantified in \cref{sec_t4t:Conclusion}.
\begin{description}
\item[C1] We show that \emph{tierless languages have the potential to significantly reduce the development effort for \gls{IOT} systems}.
\subsection{Tierless \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} languages}
The use of tierless languages in \gls{IOT} applications is both more recent and less common than for web applications.
Tierless \gls{IOT} programming may extend tierless web programming by adding network and perception layers.
-The presentation layer of a tierless \gls{IOT} language, like tierless web languages, benefits from almost invariably executing in a standard browser. The perception layer faces greater challenges, often executing on one of a set of slow and resource-constrained microprocessors. Hence, tierless \gls{IOT} languages typically compile the perception layer to either \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP} (the lingua franca of microcontrollers), or to some intermediate representation to be interpreted.
+The presentation layer of a tierless \gls{IOT} language, like tierless web languages, benefits from almost invariably executing in a standard browser. The perception layer faces greater challenges, often executing on one of a set of slow and resource-constrained microcontrollers. Hence, tierless \gls{IOT} languages typically compile the perception layer to either \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP} (the lingua franca of microcontrollers), or to some intermediate representation to be interpreted.
-\subsubsection{\texorpdfstring{\Glsxtrlongpl{DSL}}{DSLs} for microprocessors}
-Many \glspl{DSL} provide high-level programming for microprocessors, for example providing strong typing and memory safety.
+\subsubsection{\texorpdfstring{\Glsxtrlongpl{DSL}}{DSLs} for microcontrollers}
+Many \glspl{DSL} provide high-level programming for microcontrollers, for example providing strong typing and memory safety.
For example Copilot \citep{hess_arduino-copilot_2020}
and Ivory \citep{elliott_guilt_2015} are imperative \glspl{DSL} embedded in a functional language that compile to \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}. In contrast to \gls{CLEAN}/\gls{ITASK}/\gls{MTASK} such \glspl{DSL} are not tierless \gls{IOT} languages as they have no automatic integration with the server, i.e.\ with the application and presentation layers.
\subsubsection{Erlang/Elixir \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} systems}
A number of production \gls{IOT} systems are engineered in Erlang or Elixir, and many are mostly tierless.
That is the perception, network and application layers are sets of distributed Erlang processes, although the presentation layer typically uses some conventional web technology.
-A resource-rich sensor node may support many Erlang processes on an Erlang VM, or low level code (typically \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}) on a resource-constrained microprocessor can emulate an Erlang process.
+A resource-rich sensor node may support many Erlang processes on an Erlang VM, or low level code (typically \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}) on a resource-constrained microcontroller can emulate an Erlang process.
Only a small fraction of these systems are described in the academic literature, example exceptions are \citep{sivieri2012drop,shibanai_distributed_2018}, with many described only in grey literature or not at all.
\subsection{Characteristics of tierless \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} languages}%
%\subsubsection{Placement}
%
-%In many \gls{IOT} systems the sensor nodes are microprocessors that are programmed by writing the program to flash memory. This means that without extra effort, physical access to the microcontroller is needed to change the program making updates challenging.
+%In many \gls{IOT} systems the sensor nodes are microcontrollers that are programmed by writing the program to flash memory. This means that without extra effort, physical access to the microcontroller is needed to change the program making updates challenging.
%Hence, most \gls{IOT} systems compile sensor node code directly for the target architecture or via an existing language such as \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}.
%
-%Techniques such as over-the-air programming and interpreters allow microprocessors to be dynamically provisioned, increasing their maintainability and resilience.
+%Techniques such as over-the-air programming and interpreters allow microcontrollers to be dynamically provisioned, increasing their maintainability and resilience.
%For example \citet{baccelli_reprogramming_2018} provide a single language \gls{IOT} system based on the RIOT \gls{OS} that allows runtime deployment of code snippets called containers.
%Both client and server are written in JavaScript. However, there is no integration between the client and the server other than that they are programmed from a single source.
%Mat\`e is an example of an early tierless sensor network framework where devices are provided with a virtual machine using TinyOS for dynamic provisioning \citep{levis_mate_2002}.
\subsubsection{Security}
-Security is a major issue and a considerable challenge for many \gls{IOT} systems \citep{10.1145/3437537}. There are potentially security issues at each layer in an \gls{IOT} application (\cref{fig_t4t:iot_arch}). The security issues and defence mechanisms at the application and presentation layers are relatively standard, e.g.\ defending against SQL injection attacks. The security issues at the network and perception layers are more challenging. Resource-rich sensor nodes can adopt some standard security measures like encrypting messages, and regularly applying software patches to the operating system. However microprocessors often lack the computational resources for encryption, and it is hard to patch their system software because the program is often stored in flash memory. In consequence there are infamous examples of \gls{IOT} systems being hijacked to create botnets \citep{203628,herwig_measurement_2019}.
+Security is a major issue and a considerable challenge for many \gls{IOT} systems \citep{10.1145/3437537}. There are potentially security issues at each layer in an \gls{IOT} application (\cref{fig_t4t:iot_arch}). The security issues and defence mechanisms at the application and presentation layers are relatively standard, e.g.\ defending against SQL injection attacks. The security issues at the network and perception layers are more challenging. Resource-rich sensor nodes can adopt some standard security measures like encrypting messages, and regularly applying software patches to the operating system. However microcontrollers often lack the computational resources for encryption, and it is hard to patch their system software because the program is often stored in flash memory. In consequence there are infamous examples of \gls{IOT} systems being hijacked to create botnets \citep{203628,herwig_measurement_2019}.
Securing the entire stack in a conventional tiered \gls{IOT} application is particularly challenging as the stack is implemented in a collection of programming languages with low level programming and communication abstractions. In such polyglot distributed systems it is hard to determine, and hence secure, the flow of data between components. In consequence a small mistake may have severe security implications.
\subsection{The \texorpdfstring{\glsentrytext{MTASK}}{mTask} \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrlong{EDSL}}{eDSL}}%
\label{sec_t4t:mtasks}
-In many \gls{IOT} systems the sensor nodes are resource constrained, e.g.\ inexpensive microprocessors. These are far cheaper, and consume far less power, than a single-board computer like a Raspberry Pi. Microprocessors also allow the programmer to easily control peripherals like sensors and actuators via the \gls{IO} pins of the processor.
+In many \gls{IOT} systems the sensor nodes are resource constrained, e.g.\ inexpensive microcontrollers. These are far cheaper, and consume far less power, than a single-board computer like a Raspberry Pi. Microcontrollers also allow the programmer to easily control peripherals like sensors and actuators via the \gls{IO} pins of the processor.
-Microprocessors have limited memory capacity, compute power and communication bandwidth, and hence typically no \gls{OS}.
+microcontrollers have limited memory capacity, compute power and communication bandwidth, and hence typically no \gls{OS}.
These limitations make it impossible to run an \gls{ITASK} server:
-there is no \gls{OS} to start the remote task, the code of the task is too big to fit in the available memory and the microprocessor processor is too slow to run it.
-The \gls{MTASK} \gls{EDSL} is designed to bridge this gap: \gls{MTASK} tasks can be communicated from the server to the sensor node, to execute within the limitations of a typical microprocessor, while providing programming abstractions that are consistent with \gls{ITASK}.
+there is no \gls{OS} to start the remote task, the code of the task is too big to fit in the available memory and the microcontroller processor is too slow to run it.
+The \gls{MTASK} \gls{EDSL} is designed to bridge this gap: \gls{MTASK} tasks can be communicated from the server to the sensor node, to execute within the limitations of a typical microcontroller, while providing programming abstractions that are consistent with \gls{ITASK}.
Like \gls{ITASK}, \gls{MTASK} is task oriented, e.g.\ there are primitive tasks that produce intermediate values, a restricted set of task combinators to compose the tasks, and (recursive) functions to construct tasks.
\Gls{MTASK} tasks communicate using task values or \glspl{SDS} that may be local or remote, and may be shared by some \gls{ITASK} tasks.
-Apart from the \gls{EDSL}, the \gls{MTASK} system contains a featherlight domain-specific \emph{operating system} running on the microprocessor.
+Apart from the \gls{EDSL}, the \gls{MTASK} system contains a featherlight domain-specific \emph{operating system} running on the microcontroller.
This \gls{OS} task scheduler receives the byte code generated from one or more \gls{MTASK} programs and interleaves the execution of those tasks. The \gls{OS} also manages \gls{SDS} updates and the passing of task results.
-The \gls{MTASK} \gls{OS} is stored in flash memory while the tasks are stored in \gls{RAM} to minimise wear on the flash memory. While sending byte code to a sensor node at runtime greatly increases the amount of communication, this can be mitigated as any tasks known at compile time can be preloaded on the microprocessor.
-In contrast, compiled programs, like \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}, are stored in flash memory and there can only ever be a few thousand programs uploaded during the lifetime of the microprocessor before exhausting the flash memory.
+The \gls{MTASK} \gls{OS} is stored in flash memory while the tasks are stored in \gls{RAM} to minimise wear on the flash memory. While sending byte code to a sensor node at runtime greatly increases the amount of communication, this can be mitigated as any tasks known at compile time can be preloaded on the microcontroller.
+In contrast, compiled programs, like \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}, are stored in flash memory and there can only ever be a few thousand programs uploaded during the lifetime of the microcontroller before exhausting the flash memory.
\subsection{Engineering tierless \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} systems with \texorpdfstring{\glsentrytext{MTASK}}{mTask}}%
\label{sec_t4t:mtaskIOT}
-A tierless \gls{CLEAN} \gls{IOT} system with microprocessor sensor nodes integrates a set of \gls{ITASK} tasks that specify the application and presentation layers with a set of \gls{MTASK}s that specify the perception and network layers.
-We illustrate with \gls{CWTS}: a simple room temperature sensor with a web display. \Gls{CWTS} is equivalent to the \gls{ITASK} \gls{CRTS} (\cref{lst_t4t:itaskTempFull}), except that the sensor node is a \gls{WEMOS} microprocessor.
+A tierless \gls{CLEAN} \gls{IOT} system with microcontroller sensor nodes integrates a set of \gls{ITASK} tasks that specify the application and presentation layers with a set of \gls{MTASK}s that specify the perception and network layers.
+We illustrate with \gls{CWTS}: a simple room temperature sensor with a web display. \Gls{CWTS} is equivalent to the \gls{ITASK} \gls{CRTS} (\cref{lst_t4t:itaskTempFull}), except that the sensor node is a \gls{WEMOS} microcontroller.
\Cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp} shows the complete program, and the key function is \cleaninline{devTask} with a top-level \cleaninline{Main} type (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:devTask}). In \gls{MTASK} functions, shares, and devices can only be defined at this top level.
The program uses the same shares \cleaninline{tempSDS} and~\cleaninline{latestTemp} as \gls{CRTS}, and for completeness we repeat those definitions.
%The \cleaninline{mapRead} ensures that every write to \cleaninline{localSds} is automatically time-stamped when it is written to \cleaninline{latestTemp}.
-The \cleaninline{mainTask} is a simple \gls{ITASK} task that starts the \cleaninline{devTask} \gls{MTASK} task on the device identified by \cleaninline{deviceInfo} (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:withdevice}). At runtime the \gls{MTASK} slice is compiled to byte code, shipped to the indicated device, and launched. Thereafter, \cleaninline{mainTask} reads temperature values from the \cleaninline{latestTemp} \gls{SDS} that is shared with the \gls{MTASK} device, and displays them on a web page (\cref{fig_t4t:cwtsweb}). The \gls{SDS}---shared with the device using \cleaninline{liftsds}---automatically communicates new temperature values from the microprocessor to the server.
+The \cleaninline{mainTask} is a simple \gls{ITASK} task that starts the \cleaninline{devTask} \gls{MTASK} task on the device identified by \cleaninline{deviceInfo} (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:withdevice}). At runtime the \gls{MTASK} slice is compiled to byte code, shipped to the indicated device, and launched. Thereafter, \cleaninline{mainTask} reads temperature values from the \cleaninline{latestTemp} \gls{SDS} that is shared with the \gls{MTASK} device, and displays them on a web page (\cref{fig_t4t:cwtsweb}). The \gls{SDS}---shared with the device using \cleaninline{liftsds}---automatically communicates new temperature values from the microcontroller to the server.
While this simple application makes limited use of the \gls{MTASK} \gls{EDSL}, it illustrates some powerful \gls{MTASK} program abstractions like basic tasks, task combinators, named recursive and parameterized tasks, and \glspl{SDS}.
Function composition (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:o}) and currying (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:setSds}) are inherited from the \gls{CLEAN} host language.
\section{\texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{UOG}}{UoG} smart campus case study}%
\label{sec_t4t:Case}
The basis for our comparison between tiered and tierless technologies are four \gls{IOT} systems that all conform to the \gls{UOG} smart campus specifications (\cref{sec_t4t:OperationalComparison}). There is a small (12 room) deployment of the conventional \gls{PYTHON}-based \gls{PRS} stack that uses Raspberry Pi supersensors, and its direct comparator is the tierless \gls{CRS} implementation: also deployed on Raspberry Pis.
-To represent the more common microprocessor sensor nodes we select ESP8266X powered \gls{WEMOS} D1 Mini microcontrollers. To evaluate tierless technologies on microcontrollers we compare the conventional \gls{PYTHON}\slash\gls{MICROPYTHON} \gls{PWS} stack with the tierless \gls{CWS} implementation.
+To represent the more common microcontroller sensor nodes we select ESP8266X powered \gls{WEMOS} D1 Mini microcontrollers. To evaluate tierless technologies on microcontrollers we compare the conventional \gls{PYTHON}\slash\gls{MICROPYTHON} \gls{PWS} stack with the tierless \gls{CWS} implementation.
%The four systems under comparison are different in architecture ---tiered or tierless--- and type of sensor node hardware ---regular or embedded--- but they share many properties as well.
-%The embedded sensor nodes are all implemented on the ESP8266X powered \gls{WEMOS} D1 Mini microprocessor.
+%The embedded sensor nodes are all implemented on the ESP8266X powered \gls{WEMOS} D1 Mini microcontroller.
A similar range of commodity sensors is connected to both the Raspberry Pi and \gls{WEMOS} sensor nodes using various low-level communication protocols such as \gls{GPIO}, \gls{I2C}, \gls{SPI} and \gls{ONEWIRE}. The sensors are as follows: Temperature \& Humidity: LOLIN SHT30; Light: LOLIN BH1750; Motion: LOLIN \gls{PIR}; Sound: SparkFun SEN-12642; \gls{ECO2}: SparkFun CCS811.
\Cref{fig_t4t:wemos_prss} shows both a prototype \gls{WEMOS}-based sensor node and sensors and a Raspberry Pi supersensor. Three different development teams developed the four implementations: \gls{CWS} and \gls{CRS} were engineered by a single developer.
relatively powerful Raspberry Pi 3 Model Bs. There is a simple object-oriented \gls{PYTHON} collector for configuring the sensors and reading their values. The collector daemon service marshals the sensor data and transmits using \gls{MQTT} to the central monitoring server at a preset frequency.
The collector caches sensor data locally when the server is unreachable.
-In contrast to \gls{PRS}, \gls{PWS}'s sensor nodes are microprocessors running \gls{MICROPYTHON}, a dialect of \gls{PYTHON} specifically designed to run on small, low powered embedded devices \citep{kodali2016low}.
+In contrast to \gls{PRS}, \gls{PWS}'s sensor nodes are microcontrollers running \gls{MICROPYTHON}, a dialect of \gls{PYTHON} specifically designed to run on small, low powered embedded devices \citep{kodali2016low}.
To enable a fair comparison between the software stacks we are careful to use the same object-oriented software architecture, e.g.\ using the same classes in \gls{PWS} and \gls{PRS}.
\Gls{PYTHON} and \gls{MICROPYTHON} are appropriate tiered comparison languages. Tiered \gls{IOT} systems are implemented in a whole range of programming languages, with \gls{PYTHON}, \gls{MICROPYTHON}, \gls{C} and \gls{CPP} being popular for some tiers in many implementations. \Gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP} implementations would probably result in more verbose programs and even less type safety.
\Gls{CRS}'s sensor nodes are Raspberry Pi 4s, and execute \gls{CLEAN}\slash\gls{ITASK} programs.
Communication from the sensor node to the server is implicit and happens via \glspl{SDS} over \gls{TCP} using platform independent execution graph serialisation \citep{oortgiese_distributed_2017}.
-\Gls{CWS}'s sensor nodes are \gls{WEMOS} microprocessors running \gls{MTASK} tasks. Communication and serialisation is, by design, very similar to \gls{ITASK}, i.e.\ via \glspl{SDS} over either a serial port connection, raw \gls{TCP}, or \gls{MQTT} over \gls{TCP}.
+\Gls{CWS}'s sensor nodes are \gls{WEMOS} microcontrollers running \gls{MTASK} tasks. Communication and serialisation is, by design, very similar to \gls{ITASK}, i.e.\ via \glspl{SDS} over either a serial port connection, raw \gls{TCP}, or \gls{MQTT} over \gls{TCP}.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centering
%\subsubsection{Memory Consumption}%
\label{sec_t4t:MemPower}
-\paragraph{Memory} By design sensor nodes are devices with limited computational capacity, and memory is a key restriction. Even supersensors often have less than a \unit{\gibi\byte} of memory, and microprocessors often have just tens of \unit{\kibi\byte{}s}.
+\paragraph{Memory} By design sensor nodes are devices with limited computational capacity, and memory is a key restriction. Even supersensors often have less than a \unit{\gibi\byte} of memory, and microcontrollers often have just tens of \unit{\kibi\byte{}s}.
%In a tiered implementation the memory residency of the sensor node code can be minimised by carefully crafting it in a language that minimises memory residency. However, ...
As the tierless languages synthesize the code to be executed on the sensor nodes, we need to confirm that the generated code is sufficiently memory efficient.
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
-\Cref{tbl_t4t:mem} shows the maximum memory residency after garbage collection of the sensor node for all four smart campus implementations. The smart campus sensor node programs executing on the \gls{WEMOS} microprocessors have low maximum residencies: \qty{20270}{\byte} for \gls{PWS} and \qty{880}{\byte} for \gls{CWS}. In \gls{CWS} the \gls{MTASK} system generates very high level \gls{TOP} byte code that is interpreted by the \gls{MTASK} virtual machine and uses a small and predictable amount of heap memory.
+\Cref{tbl_t4t:mem} shows the maximum memory residency after garbage collection of the sensor node for all four smart campus implementations. The smart campus sensor node programs executing on the \gls{WEMOS} microcontrollers have low maximum residencies: \qty{20270}{\byte} for \gls{PWS} and \qty{880}{\byte} for \gls{CWS}. In \gls{CWS} the \gls{MTASK} system generates very high level \gls{TOP} byte code that is interpreted by the \gls{MTASK} virtual machine and uses a small and predictable amount of heap memory.
In \gls{PWS}, the hand-written \gls{MICROPYTHON} is compiled to byte code for execution on the virtual machine. Low residency is achieved with a fixed size heap and efficient memory management. For example both \gls{MICROPYTHON} and \gls{MTASK} use fixed size allocation units and mark\&sweep garbage collection to minimise memory usage at the cost of some execution time \citep{plamauer2017evaluation}.
-The smart campus sensor node programs executing on the Raspberry Pis have far higher maximum residencies than those executing on the microprocessors: \qty{3.5}{\mebi\byte} for \gls{PRS} and \qty{2.7}{\mebi\byte} for \gls{CRS}. In \gls{CRS} the sensor node code is a set of \gls{ITASK} executing on a full-fledged \gls{ITASK} server running in distributed child mode and this consumes far more memory.
+The smart campus sensor node programs executing on the Raspberry Pis have far higher maximum residencies than those executing on the microcontrollers: \qty{3.5}{\mebi\byte} for \gls{PRS} and \qty{2.7}{\mebi\byte} for \gls{CRS}. In \gls{CRS} the sensor node code is a set of \gls{ITASK} executing on a full-fledged \gls{ITASK} server running in distributed child mode and this consumes far more memory.
%The memory used is actually very similar to the memory usage of the server with a single client connected.
In \gls{PRS} the sensor node program is written in \gls{PYTHON}, a language far less focused on minimising memory usage than \gls{MICROPYTHON}. For example an object like a string is larger in \gls{PYTHON} than in \gls{MICROPYTHON} and consequently does not support all features such as \emph{f-strings}.
Furthermore, not all advanced \gls{PYTHON} feature regarding classes are available in \gls{MICROPYTHON}, i.e.\ only a subset of the \gls{PYTHON} specification is supported \citep{diffmicro}.
\paragraph{Power} Sensor nodes and sensors are designed to have low power demands, and this is particularly important if they are operating on batteries. The grey literature consensus is that with all sensors enabled a sensor node should typically have sub-\qty{1}{\watt} peak power draw.
The \gls{WEMOS} sensor nodes used in \gls{CWS} and \gls{PWS} have the low power consumption of a typical embedded device: with all sensors enabled, they consume around \qty{0.2}{\watt}.
-The Raspberry Pi supersensor node used in \gls{CRS} and \gls{PRS} use more power as they have a general purpose ARM processor and run mainstream Linux. With all sensors enabled, they consume \qtyrange{1}{2}{\watt}, depending on ambient load. So a microprocessor sensor node consumes an order of magnitude less power than a supersensor node.
+The Raspberry Pi supersensor node used in \gls{CRS} and \gls{PRS} use more power as they have a general purpose ARM processor and run mainstream Linux. With all sensors enabled, they consume \qtyrange{1}{2}{\watt}, depending on ambient load. So a microcontroller sensor node consumes an order of magnitude less power than a supersensor node.
\section[Is tierless \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} programming easier than tiered?]{\hspace{-9pt}Is tierless \texorpdfstring{\glsxtrshort{IOT}}{IoT} programming easier than tiered?}%
\subsection{Comparing codebases for resource-rich\slash{}constrained sensor nodes}%
\label{sec_t4t:resourcerich}
-Before exploring the reasons for the smaller tierless codebase we compare the implementations for resource-rich and resource-constrained sensor nodes, again using \gls{SLOC} and code proportions. \Cref{table_t4t:multi} shows that the two tiered implementations are very similar in size: with \gls{PWS} for microprocessors requiring 562 \gls{SLOC} and \gls{PRS} for supersensors requiring 576 \gls{SLOC}.
+Before exploring the reasons for the smaller tierless codebase we compare the implementations for resource-rich and resource-constrained sensor nodes, again using \gls{SLOC} and code proportions. \Cref{table_t4t:multi} shows that the two tiered implementations are very similar in size: with \gls{PWS} for microcontrollers requiring 562 \gls{SLOC} and \gls{PRS} for supersensors requiring 576 \gls{SLOC}.
The two tierless implementations are also similar in size: \gls{CWS} requiring 166 and \gls{CRS} 155 \gls{SLOC}.
There are several main reasons for the similarity. One is that the server-side code, i.e.\ for the presentation and application layers, is identical for both resource rich/constrained implementations. The identical server code accounts for approximately 40\% of the \gls{PWS} and \gls{PRS} codebases, and approximately 85\% of the \gls{CWS} and \gls{CRS} codebases (\cref{fig_t4t:multipercentage}). For the perception and network layers on the sensor nodes, the \gls{PYTHON} and \gls{MICROPYTHON} implementations have the same structure, e.g.\ a class for each type of sensor, and use analogous libraries. Indeed, approaches like CircuitPython \citep{CircuitPython} allow the same code to execute on both resource-rich and resource-constrained sensor nodes.
{\hspace{-1.7499pt}Comparing tierless languages for resource-rich\slash{}constrained sensor nodes}%
\label{sec_t4t:ComparingTierless}
-This section compares two tierless \gls{IOT} languages: one for resource-rich, and the other for resource-constrained, sensor nodes. Key issues are the extent to which the very significant resource constraints of a microprocessor limit the language, and the benefits of executing on bare metal, i.e.\ without an \gls{OS}.
+This section compares two tierless \gls{IOT} languages: one for resource-rich, and the other for resource-constrained, sensor nodes. Key issues are the extent to which the very significant resource constraints of a microcontroller limit the language, and the benefits of executing on bare metal, i.e.\ without an \gls{OS}.
With the tierless \gls{CLEAN} technologies described here, \gls{ITASK} are always used to program the application and presentation layers of the \gls{IOT} stack. So any differences occur in the perception and network layer programming.
-If sensor nodes have the capacity to support \gls{ITASK}, a tierless \gls{IOT} system can be constructed in \gls{CLEAN} using only \gls{ITASK}, as in \gls{CRS}. Alternatively for sensor nodes with low computational power, like typical microprocessors, \gls{MTASK} is used for the perception and network layers, as in \gls{CWS}.
+If sensor nodes have the capacity to support \gls{ITASK}, a tierless \gls{IOT} system can be constructed in \gls{CLEAN} using only \gls{ITASK}, as in \gls{CRS}. Alternatively for sensor nodes with low computational power, like typical microcontrollers, \gls{MTASK} is used for the perception and network layers, as in \gls{CWS}.
This section compares the \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK} \glspl{EDSL}, with reference to \gls{CRS} and \gls{CWS} as exemplars. \Cref{table_t4t:languagecomparison} summarises the differences between the \gls{CLEAN} embedded \gls{IOT} \glspl{EDSL} and their host language.
\begin{table}
User-defined datatypes & Yes & Yes & No \\
Task oriented & No & Yes & Yes \\
Higher-order tasks & {--} & Yes & No \\
- Execution Target & Commodity PC & Commodity PC & Microprocessor\\
- & & and Browser & Microprocessor\\
+ Execution Target & Commodity PC & Commodity PC & microcontroller\\
+ & & and Browser & microcontroller\\
Language Implementation & Compiled or & Compiled and & Interpreted\\
& interpreted & interpreted & Interpreted\\
\bottomrule
\subsection{Language restrictions for resource-constrained execution}
-Executing components on a resource-constrained sensor node imposes restrictions on programming abstractions available in a tierless \gls{IOT} language or \gls{DSL}. The small and fixed-size memory are key limitations. The limitations are shared by any high-level language that targets microprocessors such as BIT, PICBIT, PICOBIT, Microscheme and uLisp \citep{dube_bit:_2000,feeley_picbit:_2003,st-amour_picobit:_2009,suchocki_microscheme:_2015, johnson-davies_lisp_2020}.
-Even in low level languages some language features are disabled by default when targeting microprocessors, such as runtime type information (RTTI) in \gls{CPP}.
+Executing components on a resource-constrained sensor node imposes restrictions on programming abstractions available in a tierless \gls{IOT} language or \gls{DSL}. The small and fixed-size memory are key limitations. The limitations are shared by any high-level language that targets microcontrollers such as BIT, PICBIT, PICOBIT, Microscheme and uLisp \citep{dube_bit:_2000,feeley_picbit:_2003,st-amour_picobit:_2009,suchocki_microscheme:_2015, johnson-davies_lisp_2020}.
+Even in low level languages some language features are disabled by default when targeting microcontrollers, such as runtime type information (RTTI) in \gls{CPP}.
Here we investigate the restrictions imposed by resource-constrained sensor nodes on \gls{MTASK}, in comparison with \gls{ITASK}. While \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK} are by design superficially similar languages, to execute on resource-constrained sensor nodes \gls{MTASK} tasks are more restricted, and have a different semantics.
\subsection{The benefits of a bare metal execution environment}
-Despite the language restrictions, components of a tierless language executing on a microprocessor can exploit the bare metal environment. Many of these benefits are shared by other bare metal languages like \gls{MICROPYTHON} or \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}. So as \gls{MTASK} executes on bare metal it has some advantages over \gls{ITASK}. Most notably \gls{MTASK} has better control of timing as on bare metal there are no other processes or threads that compete for CPU cycles.
+Despite the language restrictions, components of a tierless language executing on a microcontroller can exploit the bare metal environment. Many of these benefits are shared by other bare metal languages like \gls{MICROPYTHON} or \gls{C}\slash\gls{CPP}. So as \gls{MTASK} executes on bare metal it has some advantages over \gls{ITASK}. Most notably \gls{MTASK} has better control of timing as on bare metal there are no other processes or threads that compete for CPU cycles.
This makes the \gls{MTASK} \cleaninline{repeatEvery} (\cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp}, \cref{lst_t4t:mtasktemp:sn2}) much more accurate than the \gls{ITASK} \cleaninline{waitForTimer} (\cref{lst_t4t:itaskTempFull}, \cref{lst_t4t:itaskTempFull:waitForTimer}).
While exact timing is not important in this example, it is significant for many other \gls{IOT} applications.
In contrast \gls{ITASK} cannot give real time guarantees. One reason is that an \gls{ITASK} server can ship an arbitrary number of \gls{ITASK} or \gls{MTASK} tasks to a device.
Intensional analysis of the declarative task description and current progress at run time allow the \gls{RTS} to schedule tasks and maximise idle time.
As the \gls{RTS} is the only program running on the device, it can enforce deep sleep and wake up without having to worry about influencing other processes.
-The \gls{MTASK} \gls{RTS} has direct control of the peripherals attached to the microprocessor, e.g.\ over \gls{GPIO} pins. There is no interaction with, or permission required from, the \gls{OS}.
-Moreover, microprocessors typically have better support for hardware interrupts, reducing the need to poll peripherals.
+The \gls{MTASK} \gls{RTS} has direct control of the peripherals attached to the microcontroller, e.g.\ over \gls{GPIO} pins. There is no interaction with, or permission required from, the \gls{OS}.
+Moreover, microcontrollers typically have better support for hardware interrupts, reducing the need to poll peripherals.
The downside of this direct control is that \gls{CWS} has to handle some exceptions that would otherwise be handled by the \gls{OS} in \gls{CRS} and hence the device management code is longer: 28 versus 20 \gls{SLOC} in \cref{table_t4t:multi}.
\subsection{Summary}
as it is in the tiered \gls{PYTHON} implementations (\cref{fig_t4t:multipercentage}). This suggests that the code for resource-constrained and resource-rich sensor nodes can be broadly similar in tierless technologies, as it is in many tiered technologies (\cref{sec_t4t:resourcerich}).
\end{enumerate*}
-We present \emph{the first comparison of two tierless \gls{IOT} languages: one designed for resource-constrained sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK}), and the other for resource-rich sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK}).} \gls{CLEAN}\slash\gls{ITASK} can implement all layers of the \gls{IOT} stack if the sensor nodes have the computational resources, as the Raspberry Pis do in \gls{CRS}. On resource constrained sensor nodes \gls{MTASK} are required to implement the perception and network layers, as on the \gls{WEMOS} minis in \gls{CWS}. We show that a bare metal execution environment allows \gls{MTASK} to have better control of peripherals, timing and energy consumption. The memory available on a microprocessor restricts the programming abstractions available in \gls{MTASK} to a fixed set of combinators, no user defined or recursive data types, strict evaluation, and makes it harder to add new abstractions. Even with these restrictions \gls{MTASK} provide a higher level of abstraction than most bare metal languages, and can readily express many \gls{IOT} applications including the \gls{CWS} \gls{UOG} smart campus application (\cref{sec_t4t:ComparingTierless}).
+We present \emph{the first comparison of two tierless \gls{IOT} languages: one designed for resource-constrained sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK} and \gls{MTASK}), and the other for resource-rich sensor nodes (\gls{CLEAN} with \gls{ITASK}).} \gls{CLEAN}\slash\gls{ITASK} can implement all layers of the \gls{IOT} stack if the sensor nodes have the computational resources, as the Raspberry Pis do in \gls{CRS}. On resource constrained sensor nodes \gls{MTASK} are required to implement the perception and network layers, as on the \gls{WEMOS} minis in \gls{CWS}. We show that a bare metal execution environment allows \gls{MTASK} to have better control of peripherals, timing and energy consumption. The memory available on a microcontroller restricts the programming abstractions available in \gls{MTASK} to a fixed set of combinators, no user defined or recursive data types, strict evaluation, and makes it harder to add new abstractions. Even with these restrictions \gls{MTASK} provide a higher level of abstraction than most bare metal languages, and can readily express many \gls{IOT} applications including the \gls{CWS} \gls{UOG} smart campus application (\cref{sec_t4t:ComparingTierless}).
Our empirical results are consistent with the benefits of tierless languages listed in Section 2.1 of \citep{weisenburger2020survey}.
\subsection{Reflections}
repositories / phd-thesis.git / blobdiff