publish :: Bool -> IO ()
publish isDryRun =
if isDryRun
then do
_ <- unsafePreparePackage dryRunOptions
putStrLn "Dry run completed, no errors."
else do
pkg <- unsafePreparePackage defaultPublishOptions
putStrLn (A.encode pkg)
@spec publish(boolean) :: any
def publish(true = _isDryRun) do
_ = unsafePreparePackage dryRunOptions
IO.puts "Dry run completed, no errors."
end
def publish(false = _isDryRun) do
pkg = unsafePreparePackage defaultPublishOptions
IO.puts (A.encode pkg)
end
publish :: Bool -> IO ()
publish True =
unsafePreparePackage dryRunOptions >>
putStrLn "Dry run completed, no errors."
publish False = do
pkg <- unsafePreparePackage defaultPublishOptions
putStrLn (A.encode pkg)The only upside to pattern matching that I can see is that you are forced by the compiler to match all possible inputs and check for nulls in some languages, which can help you avoid null pointer exceptions and such. But you haven't encapsulated anything, or saved yourself any thinking or typing, by using pattern matching. You've basically turned every function into a switch statement. It's vastly overrated.
Suppose you wish to add a new branch case. Under the traditional if/else (or switch) model, you'd need to modify the function containing the if statements. With pattern matching, you simply introduce a new function; it decentralizes the change and acts as a sort of simple, intuitive polymorphism.
publishLive
publishDryRun
https://bitbucket.org/iopq/fizzbuzz-in-rust/overview
I still had to bottom out at https://bitbucket.org/iopq/fizzbuzz-in-rust/src/9e5fcaabbd5f...
https://github.com/pblasucci/DeepDive_ActivePatterns
This feature allows to encapsulate conditional matching on arbitrary input and dispatching.
For those who know ML, it is making the concept of pattern matching extensible to any construct.
https://www.reddit.com/r/functionalprogramming/comments/4t91...
> The problem is fundamentally a protocol problem: booleans (and other types) are often used to encode program semantics.
> Therefore, in a sense, a boolean is a serialization protocol for communicating intention from the caller site to the callee site.
It is recommended that programmers use abstractions whenever suitable in order to avoid duplication, and associated errors
i see a lot of loop though, summation is so a double integral is loop within loop. i can't think a code analogue with derivative
fta, i take that if in function body makes an ugly code.
Other replier already gave you some common example, but let me add another one: signum(x), which returns if number is negative, positive or zero.
The straw man in the post - talking about a case-sensitive matcher that selectively called one of two different functions based on a boolean - is indeed trivially converted into calling a single function passed as an argument, but it's hard to say that it's an improvement. Now the knowledge of how the comparison is done is inlined at every call point, and if you want to change the mechanism of comparison (perhaps introduce locale sensitive comparison), you need to change a lot more code.
That's one of the downsides of over-abstraction and over-generalization: instead of a tool, a library gives you a box of kit components and you have to assemble the tool yourself. Sure, it might be more flexible, but sometimes you want just the tool, without needing to understand how it's put together. And a good tool for a single purpose is usually surprisingly better than a multi-tool gizmo. If you have a lot of need for different tools that have similar substructure, then compromises make more sense.
This is just another case of the tradeoff between abstraction and concreteness, and as usual, context, taste and the experience of the maintainers (i.e. go with what other people are most likely to be familiar with) matters more than any absolute dictum.
It seems like every time someone writes an article on how to write better code, there are responses about how it doesn't make sense when taken to some logical extreme, or some special case, as if that invalidates the argument. (FP techniques in particular seem to provoke this.) But code design is like other design disciplines-- good techniques aren't always absolutes.
Do you really think that because the given example doesn't apply to every situation it's a 'straw man'? It is a little tiring to hear all code design advice dismissed this way.
To anyone out there who clicked through to these comments and is thinking it's not worth reading the article, please go ahead and read it. It's short enough. You may or may not use fewer if-statements in the future, but it might give you a better sense of why you choose to do things one way over another.
I've seen junior devs take this kind of stuff literally and over-apply it, like it's a religious ritual that they get a pious buzz from adhering to. I'd prefer people to think first before regurgitating what they most recently learned.
I notice this form of dismissal in virtually all internet arguments. It's like most people aren't aware of the difference between a strong argument and a sound argument.
This is trivially true, any datatype can be encoded as a function. The post is not saying that we can pass any type of lambda whatsoever, but that we should pass lambdas that implement the required functionality.
> The straw man in the post - talking about a case-sensitive matcher that selectively called one of two different functions based on a boolean - is indeed trivially converted into calling a single function passed as an argument, but it's hard to say that it's an improvement. Now the knowledge of how the comparison is done is inlined at every call point
If call sites shouldn't choose wich lambda (or boolean) to pass, simply define a new function that always passes the same lambda to the original function, and use it everywhere. (This could also be a good case for partial application.)
To elaborate: this is called the church encoding of the data type. Particularly interesting for recursive data types.
The most common example is probably 'foldr' (or 'reduce' in Lisp-parlance) for linked lists.
...and a framework is likely to give you a box of components to build a tool-making factory factory factory...
Let's take the following function invocation, which can be expressed with Boolean literals or Church encoded booleans, I don't care:
match true false
Now take something like this:
match caseInsensitive contains
match foobar quux
As a result, the semantics of 'match' and its parameters are all communicated more clearly, with less room for error, and much more generality.
There need not be any syntactic overhead: it is merely the replacement of some flag with a lambda which cleanly encapsulates the effect that would otherwise be encoded in the flag. The way you invoke the function is the same, but instead of twiddling bits to get what you want, you pass functions whose meaning does not require (as much) subjective and possibly error-prone interpretation.
Note this also objectively simplifies the functions themselves, because they formerly contained conditional logic, but once you rip that out and give them no choice (invert the control!), they have less room to err, which makes them easier to get right, easier to maintain, and easier to test.
There is also another way to view the issue: with booleans, we first encode our intentions into a data structure (at the caller site), and then we decode the data structure into intentions (at the callee site).
Well, why are we packing and unpacking our intentions into data structures? Why not just pass them through?
Indeed, we do that by pulling out the code and propagating it to the caller site (possibly with names so you don't need significantly different syntax and can benefit from reuse). Then our code more directly reflects our intentions, because we're not serializing them into and out of bits.
I think the general principle applies to more than booleans, but it's easiest to see with booleans.
match caseInsensitive contains
ctx.arc(10, 20, 30, 0, 6.28, false);
#notallifs
I couldn't agree more, and this is why I think most FP programs are about as intellectual stimulating as `std::min_element`
Basically, if you structure the control flow in object oriented style (or church encoding...) then its easy to extend your program with new "classes" but if you want to add a new methods then you must go back and rewrite all your classes. On the other hand, if you use if-statements (or switch or pattern matching ...) then its hard to add new "classes" but its very easy to add new "methods".
I'm a bit disappointed that this isn't totally common knowledge by now. I think its because until recently pattern matching and algebraic data types (a more robust alternative to switch statements) were a niche functional programming feature and because "expression problem" is not a very catchy name.
Programs that are full of function indirection aren't necessarily easier to understand than ones which are full of boolean conditions and if.
The call graph is harder to trace. What does this call? Oh, it calls something passed in as an argument. Now you have to know what calls here if you want to know what is called from here.
A few days ago, there was this HN submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12092107 "The Power of Ten – Rules for Developing Safety Critical Code"
One of the rules is: no function pointers. Rationale: Function pointers, similarly, can seriously restrict the types of checks that can be performed by static analyzers and should only be used if there is a strong justification for their use, and ideally alternate means are provided to assist tool-based checkers determine flow of control and function call hierarchies. For instance, if function pointers are used, it can become impossible for a tool to prove absence of recursion, so alternate guarantees would have to be provided to make up for this loss in analytical capabilities.
Here's the deal: if is a flow control primitive. Just like goto and while. If (heh) that primitive isn't high-level enough to handle the problem you are facing, it is incumbent upon you as a programmer to use another, higher level construct. That construct may be pattern matching, it may be polymorphism (or any other form of type-based dynamic dispatch). It may be a function that wraps a complex chain of repeated logic, and is handed lambdas to execute based upon the result. It may, as in the article given here, be a funtion that is handed lambdas which apply or do not apply the transformation described.
The point is, there are many branch constructs, or features that can be used as branch constructs, in most modern programming languages. Use the one that fits your situation. And if that situation isn't a that complex, that construct may be if.
Fizzbuzz using guards is the most clean and modifiable fizzbuzz that I've seen in Haskell.
Although now that I think about it, if you provide a function with a list of numbers...
Eg Haskell and Scheme get by without 'while' and 'goto'.
Haskell would do just fine without a built-in 'if': you can define 'if' as a function via pattern matching.
Given that perspective, the article would be a call to use more expressive types than Booleans to match on---and in lots of cases not to match at all, but provide what would be the result of the match as an argument to the function.
But yes, using more expressive match types or parameters is a good idea. As for providing the result as an argument, that can be a good pattern, but isn't always practical. Note what I said in my original comment about using your own discretion.
"Bad IFs" are a code smell, and they're being scapegoated when the real problems are management demanding that simple hackish prototypes & tests be deployed into production, management that doesn't allow time for refactoring, and poor programmers who think that "bad IFs" are good code.
But the main site also doesn't do any reasonable job of defining what a "Bad IF" even is.
The crux of the matter is that programmers need time to craft the details of a project to avoid or correct technical debt. These sort of reactions just point out one tiny portion of technical debt itself and doesn't solve any fundamental problems at all.
(and yeah, I known I'm ranting against the Anti-IF campaign, not the particular take on the linked site. But this article just seems to parameterize the exact same parameters that are branched on anyway.)
That said, most places I've worked manage it poorly. Few people really understand that, just like financial debt, it's something that needs to be taken on and managed in a mindful and deliberate manner.
argv.nth(1)
.ok_or("Please give at least one argument".to_owned())
.and_then(|arg| arg.parse::<i32>().map_err(|err| err.to_string()))
.map(|n| 2 * n)
date.if_weekday(|arg| ...)
There is a place for it - like when you're trying to express a set of logic that will be guarded by the same condition, but always at the cost of some complexity.
A set of conditionals is probably the most obvious way to express branching.
That's what I recommend too[0] - with the added caveat that you shouldn't be afraid to "knock it" if it turns out to be honestly bad.
Sometimes the idea turns out bad, sometimes it turns out great - but you'll never know it if you don't try; just be honest with yourself during that trial.
Besides object polymorphism and sets of conditionals, there's also generalized predicate dispatch, but that's probably an overkill for many things.
An excerpt:
> The problem is computing the bit in the first place. Having done so, you have blinded yourself by reducing the information you have at hand to a bit, and then trying to recover that information later by remembering the provenance of that bit.
The destroy all IF reminds me of GOTO considered harmful of the 70's. There are other ways to fix the problem.
Multiple return values feel elegant also because the compiler can optimize them away when you're not using them, which is the most common case.
(Apart from that languages with multiple return values tend to have some special syntax for binding only the first few members of the returned tuple?)
The more I write code the more I realize that the entire purpose of the code is to have some effect on reality, and the more reliably it can do this, the better the code. I find I code a lot better without design principles, because trying to remember which patterns are "good" and "bad" just obscures the attention I would have used to look at the code and sense whether something would work in this particular situation.
Very nicely put. The only "principles" I keep in mind when I write code are simplicity, correctness, and efficiency, and those tend to all be correlated.
/snark, but articles like this really do fall into that trap...
Perhaps. But there's the effect you get from running the code on a computer. And the effect reading the code has on humans.
My gut thinks the solutions will be a little more boring than our inner magpies will want to admit.
The one the whole team understands and can agree upon.
I like using functional as much as anyone, and removing branching often does make the code clearer and remove the potential for mistakes.
But I admit I have a hard time with suggesting people prefer a lambda to an IF, or to not ever use an IF. A lambda is, both complexity wise, and performance wise, much heavier than an IF. And isn't is just as bad to abstract conditionals before any abstractions are actually called for?
Hi John,
Are you familiar with Jackson Structured Programming?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jackson_structured_programming
Notice how the focus in on using control flows that are derived from the structure of the data being processed and the processed data. Notice how the JSP derived solution in the Wikipedia example lack if-statements.
Pattern matching allows ones to map control flow to the structure of data. What are your thoughts on that? I think inversion of control has other benefits but I don't think it has much to do with elimination of `if` conditionals, the pattern matching does that.
Also, I noticed one thing:
In the article you mention `doX :: State -> IO ()` as being called for its value and suggest that if you ignore the value the function call has no effect. Isn't it the case that a function of that type usually denotes that one is calling the function for its effect and not for any return value? Its value is just an unevaluated `IO ()`.
For instance, at some point there will be a decision made whether the string matching must be case sensitive or not. If the program can do both at runtime, the IF will be, perhaps, in the main (or equiv.).
Good writing has one clear imperative: communicate meaningfully the intent of the author to the reader. Good code is no different; it is merely expressive writing in a different language, with, perhaps, greater constraint on its intent.
Some people make up rules like "don't use adverbs", or "don't split infinitives", in an effort to write better. But this doesn't necessarily produce good writing; sometimes an adverb is just what you need.
The same is true of code. These are useful things to think about, but "destroy all ifs" is akin to "never use a conjunction".
I realize this is one of those irritating "actually," replies, but what can I say, I'm sensitive about this topic. =)
Article: "In functional programming, the use of lambdas allows us to propagate not merely a serialized version of our intentions, but our actual intentions!"
Counterpoint: The use of structured objects instead of black box lambdas allows us to do more than just evaluate them. For example, Redux gets a lot of power by separating JSON-like action objects from the reducer that carries out the action.
But let's take instead the article's example of case-insensitive string matching. One tricky case is that normalization can change the length of the string: we might want the german "ß" to match "SS". Sure, the lambda approach can handle that. But now suppose that we want a new function that gives the location of the first match. It should support the same case-sensitivity options (because why not?). But now there is no way to get the pre-normalization location, because we encoded our normalization as a black box function. Case-by-case code would have handled this easily.
Second: The enum based refractor is actually valuable and fine IMO. If you need string functions, stop there.
Now, shipping control flow as a library is a cool feature of Haskell. But, if those arguments are turned into functions, the match function itself isn't needed! It just applies the first argument to arguments 3 and 4, then passes them to the second argument.
match :: (a -> b) -> (b -> b -> Bool) -> a -> b match case sub needle haystack = sub (case needle) (case haystack)
Does that even need to be a function? Perhaps. But if so, it's typed in a and b and functions thereof, and no longer a "string" function at all. And, honestly, why are you writing that function?
Typing it out where you need it is typically less mental impact, because I don't need to worry about the implementation of a fifth symbol named "match."
sub (case needle) (case haystack)
So, yes, replacing booleans with a callback is sometimes a good idea. But in other situations, replacing a callback with a simple booleans might also be a good idea.
Also, advice like this is often language-specific. In languages whose functions support named parameters, boolean flags are easy to use and easy to read. If you only have positional parameters, it's more error-prone, so you might want to pass arguments using enums or inside a struct instead.
In OOP, you encapsulate data into objects and then pass those around. The data themselves are invisible, they only have interface of methods that you can apply on them. So methods receive data as package on which they can call methods.
In FP, in contrast, the data are naked. But instead of sending them out to functions and getting them back, the reference frame is sort of changed; now the data stays at the function but what is passed around is the type of processing (another functions) you want to do with them.
For example, when doing sort; in OOP, we encapsulate the sortable things into objects that have compare interface, and let the sort method act on those objects. So at the time sort method is called, the data are prepared to be compared. In FP, the sort function takes both comparison function as an argument, together with the data of proper type; thus you can also look at it as that the generic sort function gets passed back into the caller. In other words, in FP, the data types are the interfaces.
So it is somewhat dual, like a different reference frame in physics.
The FP approach reminds me of Unix pipes, which are very composable. It stands on the principle that the data are the interface surface (inputs and outputs from small programs are well defined, or rather easy to understand), and these naked data are operated on by different functions (Unix commands). (Also the duality is kind of similar to MapReduce idea, to pass around functions on data in the distributed system rather than data itself, which probably explains why MapReduce is so amenable to FP rather than OOP.)
It also seems to me that utilizing this "inversion of control" one could convert any OOP pattern into FP pattern - just instead of passing objects, pass the function (method which takes the object as an argument) in the opposite direction.
I am not 100% convinced that FP approach is superior to OOP, but there are two reasons why it could be:
1. The "nakedness" of the data in FP approach makes composition much easier. In OOP, data are deliberately hidden from plain sight, which destroys some opportunities.
2. In OOP, what often happens is that you have methods that do nothing rather than pass the data around (encapsulate them differently). In FP approach, this would become very easy to spot, because the function that is passed in the other direction would be identity. So in FP, it's trivial to cut through those layers.
type Case = String -> String
-- ...
type Announcer = String -> IO String
(String -> String) functions could do anything to your query parameter and text, the type is too coarse, and the inhabitants too opaque for us to reason about them easily. Naming the type suggests the problem is solved without actually having solved it. It is like finding a hole in the ground, and covering it with leaves, so you don't have to look at it anymore. You are literally making a trap for the next person to come this way.
In an ideal world you would be able to use refinements to say that you want any (f :: String -> String) such that `toUpper . f = toUpper` but without such facilities, I think I may just settle for:
newtype Case = CaseSensitive Bool
It’s no wonder that conditionals (and with them, booleans) are so widely despised!
Even standard algorithms like quicksort[1] use conditionals.
And, while I can see how massive switch statements suck, normal conditionals are common in everyday life: "If they don't have a dark roast coffee, get me a medium roast."
All of which is to say, I really don't understand what he's getting at. The last example he gave seemed to make things even more complicated, and it basically renamed "true" and "false" to more descriptive things (forRealOptions, dryRunOptions), which seems to my untrained eye to boil down to the moral equivalent of a C enum.
"They had dark roast so I got you nothing as requested."
IOW, this program is either incomplete or wrong. Cf. "Get me the darkest roast they have." - ifless, concise, robust.
and because "expression problem" is not a very catchy name.
It's also not particularly descriptive either, but the page mentions that it's a form of "cross-cutting concern", to which the table-oriented approach basically says "do not explicitly separate the concerns."
(More discussion and an article on that approach here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9406815 )
As a bit of a fun fact, doing table-oriented stuff in C is one of the few actual uses for a triple-indirection. :-)
> I think its because until recently pattern matching and
> algebraic data types (a more robust alternative to
> switch statements) [...]
But I have to admit, I'm not entirely sure why I do this. It just feels more robust to me in some way.
The case-expression vs function-definition difference you mentioned from Haskell is just syntactic sugar. In both situations you are doing exactly the same pattern matching under the hood.
* [at least some] compilers will check for exhaustiveness
* "Pattern matching isn't just conditional matching. It's also binding, and even some common operations. "
What kind of work has there been on creating programming paradigms that make it easy to both add new types and new methods? Is it a CAP-theorem-type problem where every solution is a trade-off, or is there a way to have your cake and eat it too?
That said, there is a complexity and readability trade-off (that is hard to quantify) because these more flexible programming patterns that can solve the expression problem are more complicated than plain method dispatching or switch statements.
Some type systems are strong enough to put that kind of analysis / constraints directly into the language. (Haskell might already be strong enough with GADTs and other language extensions enabled.)
In any case, the Addendum at the end of the blog post provide a different perspective on the problem you mentioned.
If I were in charge of developing a safety critical system, and someone came to me with a proposal to write it in Haskell, I'd be very skeptical.
If you're going to do this sort of thing with much success, you really need to have a language with a fairly powerful type system. If function pointers are your only option for higher-order programming, I wouldn't even try. First class functions or interface polymorphism help, but I'd also want to have a language that makes it relatively easy to create (and enforce) types so that your extension points don't end up being overly generic.
This has not "taken over" rust. Result is another type that does this, but this makes sense for the same reasons.
That has nothing to do with primitive control flow nor is that an indication of if_weekday appearing anytime soon.
That being said having primitive control flow implemented as methods also has precedent with languages like Smalltalk or Self. That may be unusual but I don't think that's necessarily bad. I would be interested in reading about why this is bad design though.
This article mentions 'if' and 'Boolean'. Loops and lists are another example. (And for the same reason that most languages make such extensive use of loops, Haskell programs can often have a lot of lists.)
listOf(1, 2, 3, 4).filter { it % 2 == 0 } .map_err(ToString::to_string)
Why add a feature for this - worse syntax, if you can just use an anonymous function?
Rust is already not the simplest of languages, adding further syntax and features of questionable benefit won't make the language any simpler or easier to understand.
With "?" and "try!()", Rust is sort of emulating exceptions in a weird way.
(Though the biggest impact of the refactoring was to remove two home-grown abstractions and a whole bunch of ad hoc transformations and replace them with the appropriate use of the very powerful, and well-understood Applicative.)
I have a similar problem, in that every time I try to understand the perspective of functional-programming advocates, I find that the authors always seem to illustrate their points with examples like this:
match :: String -> Boolean -> Boolean -> String -> Bool
match pattern ignoreCase globalMatch target = ...
So: are there any good pages or articles that argue for for functional programming where the examples can be followed by a traditional C/C++ programmer, or by someone who otherwise hasn't already drunk the functional Kool-Aid?
Really understanding where FP is coming from requires an introduction to programming language semantics[1]. Interesting stuff, but not immediately useful to a working C programmer.
[0] https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/boolean-bli...
bool match(char *pattern, bool ignoreCase, bool globalMatch, char *target) { ...How many layers above that you want to hide that fact is entirely dependant on you and the requirements of solving there problem.
I have a problem with people assuming 'their' way is there only way, and generally being oblivious about the vast variety of problems the rest of us encounter.
data Case = CaseSensitive | CaseInsensative
Also, sometimes types you thought only had two inhabitants get a third one added later, which this facilitates.
CaseSensitive
CaseInsensitive
CaseSensitive True
CaseSensitive False
What's more, while you may be right that at the surface, the two representations are equally performant, what the newtype has that the data declaration does not, is the Prelude's definitions of all the boolean operators. If you wish to perform any more complicated logic with your data declarations treating them as booleans, you must either cast them to booleans (which comes at a runtime cost), or you must replicate the functionality of the Prelude for your custom type (which comes at a development cost).
Your branching logic (which, let us suspend disbelief and say is "not so bad", just for now) may require the combination of multiple such booleans, which in your encoding scheme would each get a different type due to their semantics, then we can't even viably define our custom boolean operators, so are forced to cast everything to booleans.
The point I'm making here is that outwardly, you want the type to reflect the semantics of how its values are used, but inwardly, you want access to its representation in a way that makes it easy to combine (or put another way, depending on who's looking, the semantics of a value changes).
Also, there is nothing stopping you from changing code later to meet changing needs. Using a newtype now doesn't preclude you from ever using a data declaration in the future. Certainly, you will have to change the patterns and constructors used in a couple of places, but that is a matter of minutes: Time you have already spent weighing the future implications of this decision in your mind right now, so this sensation of time saved is a fallacy.
Going back to programming: debt-fuelled programming should buy you something, eg speed to market, and is not a good in itself.
This paradigm is powerful because it accurately reflects how our universe works: it is possible for a thought to affect reality (through a human being acting on it), but it is not possible to "pull in" an object from reality, into your mind. The only way to form a thought about something is to look at that thing, and try to construct - in your mind - a thought that reflects certain properties of the thing you're looking at. You can't "pull" that thing from reality into your mind, thus creating a thought. No such interface exists in this universe, as far as I'm aware.
It is, however, very possible for a human being to choose to act on a thought, thereby causing the thought to have a side effect. The analog to this in Haskell is applying a pure function to a value in IO. The function is pure, but we can use it to alter a value that resides in IO (reality). Similarly, a thought, in and of itself, does not affect reality (it is pure); it requires a human being to act on it - "apply it to reality" - in order for it to have an effect.
In short: Haskell allows your program to alter reality, but it does not allow reality to alter your program.
I'm trying to be charitable, though, so let's assume that the core of their idea is something coherent. I'm guessing it's really about something I do think is an important point: How inversion of control is a design pattern that lets you create code that's much easier to manage, because it greatly limits the extent to which certain kinds of decisions need to be federated throughout the codebase.
If that's the case, then real sin (and the article author's) is mistaking if statements for the problem. Conditional branching is not a problem; I think most of us can agree it's an essential operation. The real problem they should be after is poor encapsulation. Where if statements come into it is that, if you've got badly architected code with poor encapsulation, one of the symptoms you'll see is that there will be a proliferation of if-statements that crop up all throughout the code. Every single frobinator will need to stop and check whether the widget it's operating on is a whosit or a whatsit before it can take any sort of action whatsoever. Lord help us if we ever try to introduce wheresits into the system; we'll have to go modify 50 different files so we can replace all those if-statements with switch statements.
It's probably nowhere near as fun to write an article that advocates a high level design methodology as it is to write an article that makes a bold contrarian claim like "If statements bad", though.
As an example, long if/else chains that check state can mean that you need another object, or another virtual function, or some other niblet of orchestration.
Likewise, I'm not really impressed by the anti-if campaign. At some point, abstractions cause the exact same problem they were designed to solve, and produce code that is difficult to reason about or change.
But that sentence is "I’m just joking about the Anti-IF campaign". Why would extra words help?
I think I would argue that if someone has happened to write a program that is impossible to understand for human readers (unreadable), and yet it does exactly what it's supposed to do (is correct), at the very least this program will break when the author starts to refactor it, which always needs to be done at some point.
I agree that conveying an idea to another human being through code is useful, but I think the number of times a human being has written a piece of computer code only to convey an idea to someone else is fairly small. If I want to convey an idea to another person I write in words and concepts, but if I want something faithfully executed every time, I need to write the code. And perhaps someone will look at this code later, but the origin of the code was always to get something done, not conveying an idea to someone else.
But aside from that pedantic possibility, I agree with most of the spirit of your comment.
Code can be useful to communicate with humans. In fact, the most expressive programming languages should be better at conveying precise descriptions of algorithms to other humans than natural language.
(Not a lot of programming languages reliably reach that ideal. Haskell sometimes comes close.)
I regularly write code that's meant to convey ideas, eg when explaining concepts, algorithms and data structures to people.
https://gobyexample.com/multiple-return-values
Typically they use product types to simulate sum types.
For example, if I'm writing a normal Java class, I know where I go to find methods dealing specifically with instances Foo (namely Foo and its children and direct users); with multimethods, it's more likely that there is some multimethod out there in an unrelated class that looks for instances of Foo.
A very good summary of that paper is available here: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1518#comment-17566
Another alternative based on recursive modules: http://www.math.nagoya-u.ac.jp/~garrigue/papers/#privaterows
A lesson this strengthens in me again is that sometimes a cool-looking idea turns out to be pretty bad in practice, but you only figure it out after you go ahead with it. It isn't bad to try out things (that's how we learn), but you need to be extra honest with yourself about how the thing really feels when you're first using it, and never ignore that sense this new idea actually doesn't fit well and should be rejected.
> Rust is sort of emulating exceptions in a weird way.
ctx.arc(center=Point(10,20), radius=30, beginAngle=0, endAngle=6.28, Clockwise);
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/107243/are-units-of-meas...
ctx.arc(center=Point(10cm,20cm), radius=30mm, beginAngle=0rad, endAngle=6.28rad, Clockwise);I'd like to be able to say the end angle has to be less than the start angle, that the unit has to be radians (AKA unit-less :), the unit of radius & that negative values are sensical, and so forth; and have all these properties checked by a compiler.
Which I can do in some modern languages, surprisingly. :)
data Directionality = Clockwise | Anticlockwise
data AngularInterval = {
beginAngle :: Double,
endAngle :: Double,
directionality :: Directionality
}
But I know what you're getting at! Personally, I'm a fan of programming with units and dimensions, and safely representing the distinction between absolute quantities and relative quantities.
That doesn't mean I'd want an infinite number of "float" values for all possible units and dimensions, however; just a powerful enough type system I can give myself some help at compile-time for properly threading sensical values through my programs.
But we use plenty of literals in our programs all the time. Eg lambdas are function literals. (And definitions of named functions are just a special case folding binding and a lambda.)
(At least for C as encountered in the wild, I don't know about C the standard.)
Most modern C compilers support tail call optimization.
I don't know about `most languages'. Eg I know Java on the JVM doesn't do tail call optimization. Lots of languages probably do not require TCO of their implementations, though.
* Python standard library functions, especially the ones on dicts, mutate and don't return the new dictionary.
* Python's syntax for creating functions is awkward: lambdas are cumbersome, and so are the operator package and eg functools.partial; there's no really convenient way to compose functions.This is something that bugs me about the fluent builder pattern in Java -- continuing to return `this` until suddenly you don't any more, and you can't re-use 'intermediate' values because they're actually all the same object.
Here's another website called "Destroy All Software" using a similar phrase: https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/blog
Gary Bernhardt obviously doesn't advocate removing all software from the face of the Earth. Also notice that it includes blog titles with more bombastic titles:
"One Base Class to Rule Them All"
"Burn Your Controllers"
Likewise, don't eliminate your controllers because he said it's universal advice. Maybe the title is a riff on Cortez "burn your ships" or some other cultural meme like women's liberation of "burn your bra."
As a community we should reward more nuanced and open statements.
The lambda also has more type safety. A Boolean is always a Boolean, but the compiler (and in a dynamic language the runtime) can tell you when you are calling your passed functions with the wrong arguments, because you mixed them up.
list(1, 2, 3, 4).reduce(_ + _) == 10 list(1, 2, 3, 4).reduce{print(_) + _} == 10
list(1, 2, 3, 4).reduce{it:= _; println(it); it + _} == 10
filter ((0==) . (%2)) [1, 2, 3, 4]In its treatment of expressions, C doesn't draw the distinction between function and pointer to function. When you call printf("foo\n"), the printf part is a primary expression which designates a function, and evaluates to a function pointer. That pointer is then dereferenced by the postfix ().
The main difference between a "first class" function and a function pointer is that a first class function carries an environment, which allows the body of the function to make references to lexically scoped names outside of the function. A function pointer carries a reference to the code only.
Isn't that specifically a closure? I think first class functions have a more general definition.
Structural recursion can't be guaranteed to terminate in any language that supports codata unless you have some sort of totality checker (e.g. via a monotonically structurally decreasing requirement imposed at the type or value level). I don't think any mainstream language supports this out of the box. Liquid Haskell does offer this, though.
I agree that standard Haskell is inappropriate for safety critical software, but only because it allows dynamic allocation. Any program using dynamic allocation is probably unsuitable for safety critical software. Now, a terminating and fixed-memory subset of Haskell a la Clash would be interesting for safety critical software...
Structural recursion always terminates in SML. Supporting infinite/cyclic values in algebraic data types is a misfeature, and they are trivial to rule out without using a totality checker. Heck, I can implement a guaranteed finite linked list in Java :-)
I think something like MLKit would be a more promising start for implementing a safety critical system. Tail and structural recursion actually work there, and it statically replaces most uses of GC with region inference. Though it's still a very long shot, I'd prefer something more proven.
Interesting fact about foldl'. Regardless, in practice it is strict and tail recursive. As I mentioned earlier, this does not mean the same thing as constant space unless the reduction function returns a fixed size result.
Yes, you can guarantee that a linked list in Java is finite because Java does not support codata.
Haskell's tail call recursion is also often optimized to be allocation-free, unless, again, it is generating some data structure.
Yes
Definitely.
I something think Haskell should treat non-terminating code the same way they treat IO: only allow it in portions of the code-base that are tagged somehow.
If there's something that doesn't cause a side-effect, but the compiler doesn't know that, you can tell it with unsafePerformIO. If there's something that terminates, but the compiler doesn't know, (eg calculating the hailstone sequence for a number), there could also be a suitable escape hatch to be used with care.
data Tree = Empty
| Leaf Int
| Node Tree Tree .map_err(to_string)
Functional style is hampered by excessive verbosity. (Non functional style is so verbose a bit of extra noise doesn't hurt _as much_.) Rust could use a lot more inference, custom operators[1], and so on. They seem to sort of agree, with auto-deref, auto-borrow, some type inference, but won't go all the way. I suppose being conservative can be defended -- can't go back without breaking code. Hopefully, in the future, the verbosity will annoy more people and there will be enough support to head in a more Haskell/ML direction. But they seem very opposed to it at the moment.
1: The rationale apparently being "someone might abuse it!" instead of "it makes good libraries even better". Parser combinators, UI toolkit code do great with custom operators. Require a method name (i.e. operator !!= as foo) if it's too great a concern. Can't save yourself from bad writers. Crippling yourself to avoid this seems like a poor tradeoff.
If there's only one to_string function or method, the compiler could just take this one.
Edit: Also, auto-borrow does not seem to work with this syntax.
This is a common enough pattern that reducing the visual noise will increase clarity.
What about another thread running that keeps generating pieces to the end of the linked list? (No problem, with mutation.)
class LinkedList<T> {
public final T value;
public final LinkedList<T> next;
public LinkedList(T value, LinkedList<T> next) {
this.value = value;
this.next = next;
}
} LinkedList<String> myList =
new LinkedList("Hello",
new LinkedList("World", null)); while (myList != null) {
System.out.println(myList.value);
myList = myList.next;
}