The Mondrian introduction to functional optics

Also, his abstract art was a push back against the realism in art at the time plus the horrible realism of war. He family said, "Abstract art is not the creation of another reality but the true vision of reality". He believed that by abstracting forms and colors to their essential horizontal and vertical lines and primary hues, an artist could express the fundamental, spiritual truths of the universe and achieve a pure, universal beauty and dynamic equilibrium.

Source: I've done a lot of Mondrian research while creating a board game where you actually make art in the Mondrian style while playing.

My grandfather was a painter. He had a friend who shared a studio with Mondrian at one point. His friend said that Mondrian would be very quiet then periodically would shout along the lines of "FUCK NOW I NEED TO MOVE THIS LINE HALF AN INCH TO THE LEFT."

Category theorists seem to enjoy coming up with confusing nomenclature.

Correct. The term "optics" is used by analogy; functional optics let us "zoom in" on parts of a data structure, and "zoom out to" a data structure surrounding a value.

The name lens came from the property of their letting you "focus" onto parts of a larger data structure. The prism nomenclature is more tenuous - prisms evoke the imagery of a beam of light splitting into its constituent parts, and with a prism you can see a particular facet of the whole (sum types).

This has to do with category theory and programming notions of optics and lenses.

Practically speaking, optics are useful for avoiding long chains of nested field access, like myBody.LeftArm.Hand.RingFinger.

This is particularly useful for providing copy-on-write semantics for immutable data structures. E.g. Putting a ring on a finger creates a new finger, which creates a new hand, which creates a new arm, which creates a new body. Using an appropriate lens, such updates become much simpler to write.

In the end, all an optic is is a tuple of (Getter, Setter), where in a pure functional context the Setter returns a new value.

In the end, all an iterator is is a thing that returns the next value.

In the end, all a functor is is a thing that takes a value of type A and returns a value of type B.

In the end, all a reader is is a thing that yields up some bytes (or other locally appropriate type) when .Read is called.

What makes them interesting is what you can build on them and how they can compose together. None of these concepts are all that interesting on their own. Like everything else I mention above, the primary utility of lenses is that it turns an MxN problem, where you need to implement all combinations of both sides of the functionality, into an M+N problem, where you implement N combinations of things that implement the interface and you can have M users that can use that generic interface.

However, if you are not a functional programmer this will seem particularly useless to you. People often claim monads are functional programming's response to mutability, but this merely one of the many misunderstandings of the concept, that just because one particular solution to mutability uses a monadic interface then that must be the purpose of the monadic interface. Lenses are probably a much better fit for the position of "functional programming's answer to mutability". But even in FP's you only really need them if you're dealing with deeply nested structures a lot, and especially if you want to deal with those deeply nested structures polymorphically. If you don't have that problem, even in FP you probably won't reach for lenses as regular record updates can get you a long way. Records can be seen as de facto lenses that go one layer down into the relevant type automatically, and if that's all you need then you'll never need the lens library.

Thus, if you are used to mutable programming, lenses are going to seem particularly useless to you. What's the point of taking something that's nearly useless and then composing multiple of them together, when the resulting composition is also nearly useless? The real utility in lenses is their packaging up of a Setter; the Getter is pretty easy to deal with with just a normal closure. So if you don't need Setters because you're used to just mutating things in a conventional imperative language, then there's nothing there for you.

This is why you see lots of attempts to port monads into imperative languages with varying degrees of accuracy and utility into conventional languages and have probably never seen anyone try to port lenses into them.

If you are a functional programmer, then I would reiterate that comment about nested structures. I think one of the most popular uses of lenses in the Haskell community is for dealing with JSON, when you need to just deal with it directly for whatever reason and can't easily turn it into typed values because the JSON format in question is too chaotic. That's a bad JSON format and one should never from any language spec out such a thing but if you're forced to deal with someone else's chaos you have no choice.

Optics are well-known in the real of functional programming for being hard to understand and manage. This is mostly due to complexities in implementation details. Try to take a look at https://hackage.haskell.org/package/lens to see what I mean.

The point of the article was to try to explain them in simple terms through a graphical notation, so that they become more accessible and manageable by more people.