In Chapter 36.4 of HTDP(How to Design Programs),
I found this warning:
Warning: The state variable is never a parameter of a function.
But as far as I've heard before, in functional programming, functions will be corrupted if they refer state variables. They will not be pure functions anymore. They will be hard to test, do unpredictable works, cannot be memoized ... etc. The state variables also should be passed by as parameters, not just referred as some global constants.
So I wonder
is HTDP is arguing something wrong,
in some of functional programming practices, global state variables are allowed? or
I have wrong idea?
Thanks in advance.
Disclaimer: I like&respect this book very much and learned a lot. Actually I would like to spread good words about this book to my friends(if any). So don't get it wrong.
I don't think there's anything incompatible with what you've heard about functional programming and what is written in the chapter you linked. However, you're conflating two concepts here: the presence of mutable state in functional programs (a purity issue) vs. the order in which things are evaluated, and the restrictions on the syntax you have available to write things down.
Consider: if you're using an eager evaluation strategy, then passing a "state variable" of the kind they describe in that chapter would have the effect of dereferencing it, and you would get the value of the variable as the function argument. Similarly, if the variable was bound as a parameter to the function, you would get a different bit of memory at every call. There are many different options here. The fact that some languages permit you to pass references around as values is not universal.
So they are really just describing global variables (or variables that are accessed from some parent scope), which by their very nature need not be passed to functions as parameters. If the specific language permits pass-by-reference, this might not be such a clear distinction.
Related
I've started playing around with Kotlin, but I sense my own limitation in the way I program. My problem is that I still think Java therefore the style is still imperative, my question is to all functional programming zealots , which I believe would be very useful to all people who at the very beginning stage and also need to 'brake' their brain to start building it again; to leave comfort zone and start thinking pseudo and not in "whatever is your first language". I believe it is possible for highly experienced polyglot developers to chew the concepts down to plain advices of what makes your program being written in entirely functional way and what violates the paradigm. I don't know all the quirks but please don't hesitate to include universally accepted terms which might be unknown to me(I can always lookup). At this point I need this set of rules to make myself suffer at first and not break them but then I know I will feel it, analyze guidelines and understand how they are worse/better which of course is my own homework.
So example of these guidelines, would be something like:
Never change state, this can be avoided by using x, y, z
Operate using higher order functions only (I maybe wrong, just example)
I hope the answer will give me long term reference to put myself in extreme conditions where I stop escaping to OOP whenever I feel uncomfortable. And now when I look at Kotlin I understand how I've should've been thinking about problems, it is about intention not about the structure imposed by one language or another. Intention can always be converted to a language of your choice and backed up by design patterns applicable to the language, but to find that middle ground I need to jail myself first from the comfort zone.
Avoid mutable state like the plague.
One of the main points of using functional programming, possibly the main one, is to avoid all the little pitfalls, bugs, issues one needs to deal with when using mutable state. You should do everything you can in order to avoid mutating state. For instance, instead of using C-style for-loops where you need to keep a counter variable updated, use map and other higher-order functions in order to abstract away your iteration patterns. This also means that you should never change the value of a variable if you can avoid that. Instead, you should be defining almost all of your variables, preferrably all of them, as constants, and using functions to compute new values from them instead of mutating them.
Avoid side-effects like the plague.
Mutable state's ugly cousin, side-effects. Side effects mean anything other than taking a value and returning a value in a function. If that function prints data, mutates global variables, sends messages to threads, or anything, anything other than simply taking its parameters, computing a value from them, and returning a value, that function has side-effects. Side-effects are important (see next bullet point), but if you use them a lot, they get impossible to track. Just think of how everyone tells you to avoid global variables in imperative programming. Functional programming goes a step further and tries to avoid all side-effects. The bulk of your program should be made of pure functions. (See ahead)
When you need to use side-effects, keep them contained.
Yes, I just told you to run away from side-effects. However, no program is useful without side-effects of some kind. Graphical User Interface? Side-effect. Audio output? Side-effect. Printing to a shell? Side-effect. So you can't really get rid of side-effects if you want to build useful stuff.
What you should do instead is write your code so that all your side-effecting code lives in a thin layer which mostly calls pure functions and then does the required side-effects using the result of these pure function calls.
Use pure functions for everything you can.
This is sort of the flipside of the previous point. A pure function is a function which has no side-effects and does not mutate anything. It can only take in parameters and return a value. You should use these a lot. For instance, instead of doing your logging within functions which are computing stuff, you should be constructing your log strings using pure functions, and then letting your side-effects layer call these pure functions, call more pure functions in order to format the log strings into a full log, and then output the log itself from your side-effects layer.
Use higher-order functions to structure your code.
Higher-order functions are, in a way, the glue that makes functional programming work. A higher-order function is a function which takes one or more functions as parameters and/or returns a function. The power of higher-order functions is that they can encapsulate many of the patterns which you would use in an imperative-style program in a declarative manner. For instance, let's take a look at the three most common higher-order functions:
map is a function which takes a function and a list of values, applies its function argument to each of those values, and returns a new list with the results. map encapsulates the whole pattern of iterating over a list doing an operation on each value in a declarative manner.
filter is a function which takes a function which returns a boolean and a list of values, applies its function argument to each of those values and returns a list containing only those values for which its function argument returns true. It encapsulates the whole pattern of selecting results from a list in a declarative manner.
reduce, also known as fold, takes an initial value, a binary function and a list of values. It uses its function argument to combine the initial value with the first value of the list, then combines the result with the next value of the list and keeps on doing this until it has reduced the list to just one single value. It encapsulates the entire pattern of obtaining an aggregate value from a list of values.
This is in no way an exhaustive list of higher-order functions, but these three are the most common ones. I hope this has been enough to show how you can structure code which would require a lot of tracking variables using only functions in a declarative manner. If you use these higher-order functions well, it's likely you won't ever need a for or while loop again.
This is definitely not an exhaustive list of functional programming practices, but I think most functional programmers would agree these five guidelines form the core of what functional programming is about. If you want to really learn how to apply these, my advice would be to learn a pure functional programming language such as Haskell, so you are forced to abandon the imperative paradigm and to learn how to structure things functionally instead. I would recommend the fantastic Haskell Programming from First Principles as a starting resource if you choose to go this way. In case you don't want to/can't put down the cash, Brent Yorgey's Haskell course at UPenn is also a great free resource.
Some object oriented languages (e.g. Smalltalk) do not allow accessing of
fields of any other than the current receiver object. For example:
expressions like this.good, or this.like:=false would be legal, but expressions like x.like or this.like.good are illegal.
What I don't understand is: why??
What is the rationale for such a restriction?
This is one the the core ideas of OOP called encapsulation. No one except from the object itself knows about it's internal state.
This provides better isolation, as internal state can be changed over the time an if you are accessing it directly - you're screwed. Also if someone can mess with your object's state directly you never know if something will change during a runtime when you don't expect it.
In general it's not hard to define accessors, an in the end you end up with: x like, x like: false in smalltalk and x.like(), x.setLike(false) in C-like languages. Ruby and Scala allow you to define methods with spaces and invoke them without parenthesis so they look just like field access: x.like, x.like = false. You don't have a big overhead if you are forced to write accessors, but if you allow programmers to do everything they want with objects state then you get a chaos in your code, and this is actually a big problem.
To understand all bad things that can happen if you don't use it some time is required. And when you begin to develop, you don't understand what can happen if you keep fields public. That's why C++ is a bad language to start with, as for beginners it's easier to deal with direct field access.
Also if you think about accessing fields directly, then whole idea of OOP is broken. Because you can use any data you have as in procedural languages, and classes then just play a role of grouping functions of defining data structures.
You can read more about encapsulation on wikipedia.
Also there is a very interesting post about What is Object Oriented Programming: A Critical Approach
Adele Goldberg put it rather graphically with the aphorism "ask, don't touch".
Does functional programming use variables?
If no, how do the functional programs occupy memory?
Both functional programs and imperative (C#, Java) programs use variables, but they define them differently.
In functional programs the variables are like those in mathematics, once a value has been assigned the value cannot change.
In imperative languages it is typical that the values held by variables an be changed.
In both cases variables use memory.
If you're asking about implementation details for various methods of compiling functional programs, you probably need to start with reading "Implementing functional languages: a tutorial". It is a bit out of date (e.g., it does not cover the modern STG approach), but still valuable. Another, even older text to read is Field, Harrison, "Functional programming" (never mind the title, it's mostly about implementing FP compilers).
Pure functional programming uses no variables, but maybe constants in the C sense (that is, assigned only once, but at runtime).
Functional programs occupy memory with the function call "stack", i.e. the current expression and the arguments of recursively called functions.
Does functional programming use variables?
Well, at least you can bind names to values. One can call this name a variable, even if it is not variable. But in math, when we see:
x + 3 = 5
we call x a variale, though it is just another name of 2.
Otoh, the names that are bound to arguments of functions are indeed variable, if only across different invocations of the function.
If no, how do the functional programs occupy memory?
There will be language elements to construct non-primitive values, like lists, tuples, etc. Such a data constructor creates new values from old ones (somewhere in memory, but those details are irrelevant for FP).
This question already has answers here:
Closed 11 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Is there any advantage of being a case-sensitive programming language?
My first programming experiences where with the Basic family (MSX Basix, Q-basic, VB).
These are all not case-sensitive. Now, it might be because of these first experiences, but I've never grasped the benefit of a language being case sensitive. On the contrary, I think it is a source of unneeded overhead and bugs, and it still annoys me when I use e.g. Java or C.
Now, I just read on Clojure (a Lisp-dialect) and noticed - to my surprise - that one of the differences with Lisp is case-sensitivity.
So: what is actually the benefit (to the programmer) of having a case-sensitive language?
The only things I can think of are:
double the number of symbols
visual feedback and easier reading for complex variables using techniques like CamelCase, e.g. HopCount
However, the first argument doesn't hold because of being a major source for bugs (bad practice to use hopcount and HopCount in one method).
The second argument doesn't hold either, as a decent IDE can provide this also in an other way. A good example is the VBA IDE, which has a very good approach: the langauge is case-insensitive but as soon as you type a variable it will change it to the case used in its definition. For example, if you defined Dim thisIsMyVariable as string, it will change any occurrence of thisismyvariable into thisIsMyVariable). That provides the programmer with an immediate clue that the variable was actually typed-in correctly (because it changed appearance).
Edit: added ... benefit to the programmer ...
One point is, like you said, visual aid. Most programming languages (and even frameworks) have conventions on how to capitalize variables, names, etc.
Also, it enforces using uniform names everywhere, so you don't have a mess with the same variable referred to as "var", "Var" or even "VaR".
I can't remember of ever having bugs related to capitalization, so that point seems kind of contrived to me.
Using 2 variables of the same name but different capitalization to me sounds like a conscious attempt to shoot yourself in the foot. Different capitalization conventions almost everywhere signify objects of completely different type (classes, variables, methods and so on), so it's pretty hard to make such a mistake due to the completely different semantics.
I'd like to think of it in this way: what do we gain by NOT having case-sensitivity?
We introduce ambiguity, we encourage sloppiness and poor style.
This is a slightly subjective matter of course.
Many naming conventions demand that symbols denoting objects from different semantic classes (types, functions, variables) have their own name casing rules. In Java, for example, types names always begin with a upper case letter, while variables, member function names etc. begin with a lower case letter. This effectively puts type names in a different namespace and gives a visual clue what a statement actually means.
// declare and initialize a new Point
Point point=new Point();
// calls a static member function of type Point
Point.fooBar();
// calls a member function of Point
point.moveTo(x,y);
I have been learning Objective-C as my first language and understand Classes, Objects, instances, methods, OOP in general, etc enough to use the language and make simple applications work, but I wanted to check on a few fundamental questions that have never been explained in examples I followed.
I think the questions are so simple that they will confuse a lot of people, but I hope it will make sense to someone out there.
(While learning Objective-C the authors are assuming I have a basic computer programming background, yet I have found that a basic computer programming background is hard to come by since everyone teaching computer programming assumes you already have one to start teaching you something else. Hence the help with the fundamentals)
Passing and Returning:
When declaring methods with parameters how is the parameter stuff actually working if the arguments being passed into the parameters can have different names then the parameter names? I hope that makes sense. I know parameter names are variables for that very reason, but...
are the arguments themselves getting mapped to a look up table or something?
Second the argument "types" (int for example) have to match the parameter return types in order for them to be passed into the method, and you always have to make your arguments values equal the parameter names somewhere else in your code listing before passing them into the method?
Is the following correct: After a method gets executed it returns a particular value (if it is not void) to the class or instances that is calling the method in the first place.
Is object oriented programming really just passing "your" Objects instance methods around with the system generated classes and methods to produce a result? If we are passing things to methods so they can do some work to them and then return something back why not do the work in the first place eliminating the need to pass anything? Theoretical question I guess? I assume the answer would be: Because that would be a crazy big tangled mess of a method with everything happening all at once, but I wanted to ask anyway.
Thank you for your time.
Variables are just places where values are stored. When you pass a variable as an argument, you aren't actually passing the variable itself — you're passing the value of the variable, which is copied into the argument. There's no mapping table or anything — it just takes the value of the variable and sticks it in the argument.
In the case of objects, the variable is a pointer to an object that exists somewhere in the program's memory space. In this case, the value of the pointer is copied just like any other variable, but it still points to the same object.
(the argument "types" … have to match the parameter return types…) It isn't technically true that the types have to be the same, though they usually should be. Some types can be automatically converted to another type. For example, a char or short will be promoted to an int if you pass them to a function or method that takes an int. There's a complicated set of rules around type conversions. One thing you usually should not do is use casts to shut up compiler warnings about incompatible types — the compiler takes that to mean, "It's OK, I know what I'm doing," even if you really don't. Also, object types cannot ever be converted this way, since the variables are just pointers and the objects themselves live somewhere else. If you assign the value of an NSString*variable to an NSArray* variable, you're just lying to the compiler about what the pointer is pointing to, not turning the string into an array.
Non-void functions and methods return a value to the place where they're called, yes.
(Is object-oriented programming…) Object-oriented programming is a way of structuring your program so that it can be conceptually described as a collection of objects sending messages to each other and doing things in response to those messages.
(why not do the work in the first place eliminating the need to pass anything) The primary problem in computer programming is writing code that humans can understand and improve later. Functions and methods allow us to break our code into manageable chunks that we can reason about. They also allow us to write code once and reuse it all over the place. If we didn't factor repeated code into functions, then we'd have to repeat the code every time it is needed, which both makes the program code much longer and introduces thousands of new opportunities for bugs to creep in. 50,000-line programs would become 500 million-line programs. Not only would the program be horrendously bug-ridden, but it would be such a huge ball of spaghetti that finding the bugs would be a Herculean task.
By the way, I think you might like Uli Kusterer's Masters of the Void. It's a programming tutorial for Mac users who don't know anything about programming.
"If we are passing things to methods so they can do some work to them and then return something back why not do the work in the first place eliminating the need to pass anything?"
In the beginning, that's how it was done.
But then smart programers noticed that they were repeating copies of some work and also running out of memory, so they decided to put that chunk of work in one central place to save memory, and then call it by passing in the data from where it was before.
They gave the locations, where the data was stuffed, names, because the programs were big enough that nobody memorized all the numerical address for every bit of data any more.
Then really really big computers finally got more 16k of memory, and the programs started to become big unmanageable messes, so they codified the practice as part of structured programming. It's now a religious tenet.
But it's still done, by compilers when the inline flag is set, and also sometimes by hand on code that has to be really really fast on some very constrained processors by programmers who know when and where to make targeted trade-offs.
A little reading on the History of Computers is quite informative about how we got to where we are today, and why we do such strange things.
All that type checks used (at most) only during compilation stage, to fix errors in code.
Actually, during execution, all variables are just a block of memory, which is sent somewhere. For example, 'id' type and 'int' are both represented as 4-byte raw value, and you can write (int)id and (id)int to convert those type one to another.
And, about parameters names - they are used by compiler only to let it know, to which memory area send some data.
That's easy explanation, actually all that stuff is complicated, but I think you'll get the main idea - during execution there are no variable names/types, everything is done via operations over memory blocks.