Follow up to "Functional Programming Doesn't Work"
prog21.dadgum.com
prog21.dadgum.com
Because we all know already that a program needs to print values or "do" something to be useful, so in that way no program is ever 100% pure - is that what he's talking about?
Or is he talking about 100% pure functional languages which allow functional ways of writing IO code, like Haskell?
In Haskell can't you still program nearly 100% imperatively, just by wrapping stuff in the IO mondad?
mysquare x = x * x
mysquarer x = do
putStrLn "Hey look, it squared"
return (mysquare x)
main = do
putStrLn "Starting program..."
x' <- mysquarer 9
putStrLn (show x')
Or is he just arguing that we should write programs in functional languages but just with an imperative style (no points-free and simple use of IO)?
What he means is that purity is more of a curse than a blessing. That the pure approach is not a good way to think about the problem. That you should use purity as a tool, but not dogma.
Edit: As an aside, I already know that "Monad" doesn't mean impure (having implemented an IO monad in my spare time to find out) and that was implied when I said "100% pure functional [...] like Haskell".
They are implemented purely, nonetheless they do allow side-effect (impure) programming.
"what's often a tremendous puzzle in Erlang (or Haskell) turns into straightforward code in Python or Perl or even C." (http://prog21.dadgum.com/54.html)
In my limited experience, the type-checking constraints in haskell make programs using monads unnecessarily hard to change. I just assumed I didn't know what I was doing; it's interesting that James Hague is agreeing with a lot more knowledge and experience.
When you write
x = 4 + 5
As I understand it, the only function that has the power to "do" anything (computation or IO) undernormal circumstances is main, which always has type IO ().
Since it's pure a decent compiler should be able to simply replace any `x` with the number 9 - correct me if I'm wrong :)
Any primitive (C code) however won't run until run-time, which is probably the pressing reason putStr doesn't run until run-time (and that's a good thing :)
When you sequence computations with >>=, like the grandparent does, you generally evaluate the left side of the operation before running the computation. That is the point of monads; sequencing computations and controlling the order of evaluation. Sine the rhs depends on the lhs, the sequence is "evaluate lhs completely", "evaluate rhs completely", and so on.
Can anyone shed some light on the WTF-ness of this article? (Other than the author disliking purely functional development and "98% functional" development, whatever that means).
But by using the right mix of functional and imperative you get the best of both worlds.
I don't necessarily agree with that but I have no problem understanding it.
The more I learn about 'functional' programming the more I'm beginning to see that it is not so much a simple technique as it is a wholly different approach to solving the problems, which often leads to tremendous insights that in turn lead to huge optimization possibilities.
Witness the 'hashlife' link that I posted last week, I never even thought such an optimization was even possible.
But that's really a wording issue, and not one with his argument. He's just saying that being purely functional is not worthwhile, 'just functional' is good enough.
Forget about the 98 and 85 numbers.
The point of the follow-up was to merely say that functional programming works as long as you don't try to rigorously and dogmatically apply it to everything. There's a sweet spot where most of your code is functional but you also allow certain inconsistencies in, in order to make the whole system palatable.
This was actually what he was trying to say in his first post, but he didn't really get it across clearly, hence, the follow-up.
Whenever I hear "functional programming sucks", it's from someone who doesn't know what functional programming is or how to do it. Whenever I hear "object oriented programming sucks", it's from someone who doesn't know what object oriented programming is or how to do it. Do you detect a pattern?
Of course you're free to disbelieve that I know how to do it. (I did program professionally in that style for years and did a lot of consulting/mentoring to teams in OO practices if that helps, not that it should.)
That's one of the best last lines in a blog post I've seen in awhile. Absolutely true about a whole lot of things!
He was clear enough in the first article that he was advocating compromise over purity, specifically addressing pure FP's faults as a tool for software development. The real problem is not with him, but that with FP we've hit that point where the hype has induced people to start bellowing various forms of "USE FP EVERYWHERE, FP>IMPERATIVE" meme from the rooftops. See the memes around TDD, design patterns, etc.
In conclusion, this is a prime indicator that the "interesting new stuff" in programming practice has gone elsewhere. Functional style is quickly entering the mainstream, it has its zealots, and it's well on its way to become just another tool. So the question is now, what's next?
I do think Hague has a point though, even if it is limited in scope to particular kind of programs
The time has come to retreat and climb higher into our ivory tower: we need to design a language that is so devious, so confusing, and so bizarre, it will take donkey’s years for mainstream languages to catch up. Agda, Coq, and Epigram are some approximation of what functional programming might become, but why stop there? I want strict data, lazy codata, quotient types, and a wackier underlying type theory.
I was under the impression that this was a simple and fairly well understood problem. Either use a functional abstraction for state, a reduce with state or perhaps a monad if the state needs to be carried through many types of operations, or manage it in an impure way, using STM with a global state perhaps.
I don't see how this is any knock against the functional programming paradigm. I always understood the rule of thumb to be "use purity as much as possible, and be impure only when it's explicitly needed." Modifying a global state seems to be a pretty obvious case for using an impure function.
Am I misunderstanding this?
This is pretty much exactly what he's saying.
His response was targeted at people who think functional programs should wholly avoid state and side-effects. (I don't actually know of too many people who believe this, but apparently he does)
If you are struggling in Clojure, i know this is a common argument but i think it's true, it's probably because you didn't code enough in it for this style of programming to become natural.
Moreover,and on a side note, i'd very much like an example of what was very hard in clojure and was straight forward in Lisp ,whatever lisp that is, i assume CL. It would be interresting to me to know what kind of code does seem hard to produce at first in clojure.
(The answer is yes, because it often follows expectations. This is why dynamically-typed languages work. Although there is no explicit structure, you can generally see what type the author wants something to be by understanding what the code is trying to do. With imperative programming, the same is true. The "+" function probably doesn't depend on your fooBarBaz global variable, so you can pretend it doesn't. But there is no guarantee -- and programming based on guarantees is safer than programming based on hoping the author is doing what you think he's doing.)
The hatred for "side effects" comes largely from a prehistoric tendency of programmers to write highly optimized in-place operations that destroyed the original data. An example would be a matrix multiplication that destroys one of the original matrices, or Common Lisp's NCONC (a faster APPEND that destroys some of the lists passed as arguments).
The general guiding principle of good code is that visible state changes occur only when requested. (For optimization, private state changes can be used, such as caching/memoization, but these are behind a layer of abstraction and don't violate the referential transparency of the API.)
In medicine, they have a saying, "There are no side effects, only effects." I first heard that from a psychiatrist, discussing how he initially selects antidepressants for his patients based on side effects, such as weight loss or gain. Viagra was originally a heart medication.
What the discussion really comes down to is, what is the intent of the programmer? If the reason for a function call is a return value, but there's also a state change, then a problem will almost always arise because you want one but not the other. That's why change of state and global variables are usually maligned, because it couples disparate behavior, sometimes in unintentional or obfuscated fashion.
Further reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Command-query_separation
Eiffel is apparently designed such that anything with a return value causes no change of state, and vice-versa. It's an interesting idea because it means that a change state, like you said, is never a side-effect, but always the intention of the caller.
Like pretty much almost everything, anywhere, ever, it's probably better as a general programming practice rather than a language-enforced restriction. And that's basically what the author was saying about purity--it's better as a guideline than a commandment.
For example, a function that creates a user account with a unique numerical user ID, that isn't known until the account is created, can return the user's ID, e.g.
(create-user-account "Bob") => 9001
(defn create-acct-and-immediately-do-something [username]
(let [user-id (create-user-account username)]
(do-something-with-acct user-id)))