Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I've never programmed in a "pure" functional language. I earned my stripes on C and C++, tried Java, C#, PHP etc... but always I found myself going back to C++. Perhaps I'm a bit of a masochist, but I love the low level stuff.
I also find that I can accomplish rapid development quickly through the embedding of LUA, Python or other scripting languages (along with their focus on rapid development).
Long story short, I'm not quitting C/C++ so don't talk me out of it. However I've had little time to learn C++11 and I'm starting to feel the acceleration of the curve towards functional programming happening in the future.
My question is twofold. What language was C++11's concept of lambda functionality "borrowed" from, and what language would be the ideal one, if not that one, or if any to get a feel for "the way" to use C++11's new lambda functionality (no pun intended).
PS: I'm honestly not too happy about the new "bloated" additions to C++. I liked C++ how it was, it's starting to feel like the language is becoming bloated. I won't clam that to be a fact; I hear you have to have experienced a functional language to "get it".
It honestly seems like there is a new heavyweight in town. First it was just "procedural" programming, then came the OOP paradigm shift, while now it seems like things are heading towards the "functional" way of doing things.
Of course procedural programming is still alive and well (inside classes), I have to wonder where the lambda way will fit in (properly used) to class/oop design. Will it just be a replacement for the procedural part? Make OOP a thing of the past (pfft)? Or something else entirely (say, a functional event system generating events for objects encapsulating procedural code)?
I would try to curtail your opinions until you have more rigorous experience of the issues involved.
To paraphrase Bjarne Stroustrup: Functional programming has had a lot of airtime in academia over the last several decades, yet the number of deployed functional systems in industry remains about zero.
More concretely to your question, a lambda is just a short-hand syntactic way to declare a singleton functor object (a class with an operator() function) that captures variables from its enclosing scope as member variables. I wouldn't consider it a "functional programming" concept, any more so than any other entity in C++.
Functional programming generally involves immutable data types (objects that dont change once constructed) and pure functions (functions that have output that depends purely on their input, and nothing else).
If you are interested in functional programming there is a free online course (MOOC) starting right now called Functional Programming Principles in Scala, that serves as a very good and highly regarded introduction to the subject from one of the top Swiss universities.
I can't speak about lambdas in C++11, but I know that part of the rationale for adding lambdas to Java 8 is to enable transparent concurrency support out of the box. How? It provides a (lazy) Stream interface where you can switch between parallel and sequential processing simply by calling parallel and sequential (these methods return new streams, and do not have side effects on existing streams).
If you look at the methods in Stream, you'll quickly notice that without a lambda facility, they would be an extreme pain to use. Have a look at some examples of what you can do with streams in combination with lambdas.
It should be possible to implement a similar library for C++11, if there isn't already such a library.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 11 years ago.
Improve this question
Is it still worthwhile to learn ASM?
I know a little of it, but I haven't really used it or learned it properly because everything I learn to do in assembler I can do in 1/10th the time with some language like C or C++. So, should I really learn and use ASM? Will it do me any good professionally? Will it increase my resourcefulness? In short, would it make me a better programmer?
Note: I am talking about low-level assembly like FASM or NASM and not something like HLA (High-Level Assembler).
I learned from Kip Irvine's book. If you ignore the (fair) criticisms of his (irrelevant) libraries, I can recommend it as a good introduction to the language itself -- although for the really interesting stuff you have to hunt out obsessives on the net.
I think it's useful to understand what happens at the lower levels. As you research assembler you will learn about cpu pipelining, branch prediction, cache alignment, SIMD, instruction reordering and so on. Knowledge of these will help you write better high-level code.
Furthermore, the conventional wisdom is to not try to hand-optimise assembly most of the time but let the compiler worry about it. When you see some examples of the twisted things that compilers generate, you will better understand why the conventional wisdom holds.
Example: LFSRs run fast with the rotate-with-carry instruction, for specific cases like this it's just as easy to write the assembler version as it is to discover whether or not the compiler is smart enough to figure it out. Sometimes you just know something that the compiler doesn't.
It also increases you understanding of security issues -- write-or-execute, stack overruns, etc.
Some concurrency issues only become apparent when you are aware of what is happening at the per-instruction level.
It can be useful sometimes when debugging if you don't have the complete source code.
There's the curiousity value. How are virtual functions implemented anyway? Ever try to write DirectX or COM programs in assembler? How do large structures get returned, does the calling function offer a space for them or vice-versa?
Then there are special assembly languages for graphics hardware, although shader languages went high-level a few years ago, anything which lets you think about a problem a different way is good.
I find it interesting that so many people jump to say that yes, you need/should learn assembly. To me the question is how much assembly do you need to know? I don't think you have to know assembly like a programming language, that is I don't believe that everyone should be able to write a program in assembly, but on the other hand, being able to read it and understand what it actually means (which might require more knowledge of the architecture than the assembler) is enough.
I for sure cannot write assembly (i.e. write any non trivial piece of code in assembly), but I can read it and that together with knowledge of the actual hardware architecture, and the calling conventions that are being used is enough to analyze performance, and identify what piece of C++ code was the source of that assembly.
Yes - the primary reason to learn assembly for C and C++ developers is it helps understanding what's going on under the hood of C and C++ code. It's not that you will actually write code in assembly, but you will be able to look at code disassembly to assess its efficiency and you will understand how different C and C++ features work much better.
It's worthwhile to learn lots of different languages, from lots of different paradigms. Learning Java, C++, C#, and Python doesn't count, since they are all instances of the same paradigm.
As assembly is at the root (well, close to the root) of all languages, I for one say that it is worthwhile to learn assembly.
Then again, it's worthwhile to learn a functional programming language, logic programming, scripting languages, math-based languages. You only have so much time, so you do have to pick and choose.
Knowing ASM is also useful when debugging, as sometimes all you have is "ASM dump of the error".
Depend of which programming level you wish to reach.
If you need to work with debuggers then YES.
If you need to know how compilers works then YES.
Any assembler/debugger is CPU dependent, so there is a lot of work, just check x86 family how big and old is it.
Do you have any use for it in what you plan to do? is it going to aid you in any way in what you currently do or plan to do? those are the two questions you should ask yourself, the answer to those is the answer to your question.
In a more general sense, yes, I'd say in my opinion is well worth learning asm (something like x86 or arm), how well it serves you depends on what you programming and how your debugging it.
This question already has answers here:
Closed 12 years ago.
Possible Duplicate:
Haskell vs. procedural programming in the real world
Few times I heard people saying things like "Every programmer should know Haskell", "You aren't a programmer if you don't know haskell" and so on.
However, I'm not exactly sure if I should bother trying to get a brief understanding of that language or not. Playing around with interpreter (to get intuitive understanding of basics) will take at least few days (if not weeks), and I"m not exactly sure if the result will be worth it.
A bit of background (to get idea of my knowledge)
I've started programming as a kid (somewhere between 10 or 13 years ago) with programmable calculator, moved to basic, then onto non-x86 assembly (reimlementing multiplication and division, and writing self-modifying mouse driver was fun), pascal, delphi, now I'm using C++ almost exclusively. Know my way around unix shell, can write software in python and probably in anything (if I have a reference book nearby) that remotely resembles C++ or Pascal (i.e. blocks, similar flow control, etc). Specialization is 3D programming and shaders. "Fish in the water" with low-level operations (C-style memory allocation, pointers), less comfortable with extremely OOP approach (i.e. when classes are made for the sake of having classes). Almost completely self-taught. I.e. definitely not a newbie, but there are areas where I could improve.
So... what could I possibly gain from studying Haskell at this point? As far as I know, this language is not really widely used, as a result there probably is less libraries it can interface with (as it was with Delphi programming - you can do DirectX programming in delphi, if you really want, but you can't write 3dsmax/maya plugin with it (well, it is probably theoretically possible, but it certainly won't be easy)). I also don't think that I'll be easily able to plug a piece of Haskell code into game engine.
So, what kind of useful knowledge I can get from it?
P.S. I won't buy "if you learn another language, you'll probably learn something that will be probably useful" argument.
(Surely this is a duplicate question, but I can't find one now.)
You learn it in order to learn pure functional programming, which forces you to do many things in a completely different way. You get a new way of thinking. Programming without state? Programming without effects? Everything is lazy? Crazy type system with type inference? What the hell are monads? Your mind will be repeatedly blown, but in the end you come out with new perspectives/techniques from functional programming that are hard to otherwise pick up without going full-blown Haskell.
The problem with trying to be specific, is that trying to tell a non-Haskeller what they'll learn from Haskell is like trying to explain the color "green" to a blind guy.
A few years ago, many people were surprised to discover one of the introductory courses was being taught using Haskell as a/the programming language! Although I didn't have experience with Haskell, I had some background in Lisp and other Functional Programming languages.
I think the anecdote shows how knowledge can be useful when you least expect it.
In more practical terms: You may have noticed that CPU speeds hit a wall some years ago, and now the most practical way to pull more performance from computers is by installing multiple CPUs. Now it so happens that most if not all of the programming languages you know are essentially single tasking, and subject to the Von Neumann bottleneck. An obvious solution is parallel programming, but that can be very painful if the parallel parts of your program end up sharing state, i.e. memory - and this is most often the case.
It turns out that Functional Programming is a style that allows you to mostly circumvent the problems of parallel programming with shared state. Stated differently, it's fairly easy to write programs in the FP style that are "naturally" thread safe and suitable for parallel processing. Depending on the language, compiler and hardware you may even find (as I recently did) parts of your program running in parallel without ever having done any explicit coding for parallelism.
I'm frequently wrong, but my guess is that Functional Programming will turn out to be one of the hot programming paradigms of the future as parallel programming becomes more important and more difficult. Haskell may not turn out to be the language of choice - my personal favorite is currently Clojure - but it may well be worthwhile to take a look at one or more FP languages.
I also don't think that I'll be easily able to plug a piece of Haskell code into game engine.
If you only want to write 3D game engines then maybe there's not much point in learning Haskell.
If you want to be a well-rounded programmer capable of programming in multiple paradigms and you currently only know C-like languages then it is worth a look.
Every time you learn a new very different language it makes learning the next language easier because you're not just memorizing new syntax, you're also learning different ways of thinking about programming. If you try out a new language and you see some new feature you will more quickly understand it if you can relate it to another feature in a language you already know. The more languages you know the more likely it is that this new feature is similar to something you've seen before.
It's also handy to have many tools available in your toolbox. Some problems are better solved in one language than another. If you have 5 very different types of languages then you can select the best one for each problem. If you know only 2 or 3 very similar languages then some problems will be easy to solve, but others might be more difficult than if you used a language which is better at that specific task.
If 3D programming is your thing, you might be interested in some slides from a talk entitled The Next Mainstream Programming Languages: A Game Developer's Perspective by Tim Sweeney, the founder of Epic and technical director for the Unreal engine. He's spoken on the subject multiple times, and he clearly thinks very highly of Haskell.
There are several things you can get, mainly in the way you think about things. For example, it is interesting to notice what a minimal language is. If you go through SICP (and the same concepts apply to Haskell too), you will notice how you don't need loop syntax at all. You don't need any predefined functions that work on larger structures. You can define pretty much everything you need if you are given a cons constructor/deconstructor, or a way of defining one, and ability to recurse functions. You can define everything else yourself - and it is an interesting exercise to do so. And this is only the tip of the iceberg.
On a more practical level, for example, a couple of weeks ago I was doing OCaml homework and moaning "why doesn't this $%$%# language have call/cc!?!" My mind was blown when I noticed what I was thinking - I would never have missed it if I didn't know what it was, and I wouldn't known what it was if I didn't take a look at Scheme, Haskell, Ruby.
You can find many nice examples at ICFP contest; the one that really wowed me was this entry at this contest. They created a new language inside Haskell to solve their problem.
Learning a functional language will be quite a change from what you are used to.
So yes, you'll probably going to learn something useful ;)
I would say, if it's a chore don't do it. Otherwise start to read this and you should see after 10 mn if you are bored or if you are gripped and can't stop reading it.
Functional languages like Haskell are a different way of thinking about a problem. They are useful for learning and teaching data structures and algorithms, as they simplify those kinds of problem.
If you use the STL from C++, that has functional concepts that are similar to Haskell and other languages, so having a grounding in Haskell will help understand how the STL works.
If you use XSL:T to transform XML, that is very functional in its design.
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm currently working on the topic of programming-languages and interpreter-design. I have already created several programming languages but couldn't reach my goal so far:
Create a programming-language which focuses on giving the programmer a good feeling when writing code in it. It should just be fun and/or interesting and in no case annoying to write something in it.
I get this feeling when writing code in Python. I sometimes get the opposite with PHP and in rare cases when having to reinvent some wheel in C++.
So I've tried to figure out some syntactical features to make programming in my new language fun, but I just can't find any.
Which concrete features, maybe mainly in terms of syntax, do/could make programming in a language fun?
Examples:
I find it enjoyable to program in Ruby because of it's use of code blocks.
It would be nice if you could include exactly one example in your answer
Those features do not have to already exist in any language!
I'm doing this because I have experienced extreme rises in (my own) productivity when programming in languages I love (because of particular features).
You mentioned Ruby in your question. AFAIK, Ruby is the only programming language, for which Joy is an actual, stated, explicit design goal. (In fact, it is the only design goal.)
The reason that Yukihiro Matsumoto was able to design Ruby this way, is that he already knew and used tons of programming languages before he started designing Ruby and learned tons more in order to design Ruby. (Interestingly, he didn't know Python, and has said that he probably wouldn't have created Ruby if he did.)
Here's just a tiny fraction of the languages that matz has either used himself, or looked at for inspiration (or in some cases for inspiration what not to do):
CLU
Sather
Lisp
Scheme
Smalltalk
Perl
Python
Haskell
Scala
PHP
C
C++
Java
C#
Objective-C
Erlang
And I believe that this is one way that good programming languages can be designed (what Larry Wall calls postmodernist language design): Throw away everything that didn't work in the past, take everything that worked and combine that tastefully.
Of course, this requires that you actually know all those languages from which you want to "steal" and in particular, it requires that you know lots of very different languages with different paradigms, different concepts and different "feels", otherwise the idea pool from which you steal is rather small and inbred.
Consistency.
Its the feeling that you already know something when you use an API or feature you've never used before. It also makes you more productive as you don't have to learn something new for the sake of it.
I think this is also one of the Ruby 'likes', in that if you follow the naming convention, things start to 'just work' without bindings and glue and suchlike.
For example, using the STL in C++, many of the algorithms are the same for all containers - even strings. That makes it nice to use... except for those parts that do not follow the same API (eg vector of bools) then the difference is more noticable.
Two things to keep in mind are orthogonality and the principle of least surprise.
A programming language should make it easy to write correct programs and difficult (if not impossible) to write incorrect programs. For instance, in Java
long x = 2000000000 + 2000000000;
overflows, while
long x = 2000000000L + 2000000000;
doesn't. Is this obvious? I don't think so. Does anyone ever want something to overflow? I don't think so.
Hilarity.
http://lolcode.com/
Follow common practices (like using + for addition, & for bitwise/logical and)
Group logicaly-similar code in namespaces
Have an extensive string processing library
Incorporate debugging facilities
For a cross-platform language, try to minimize platform differences as much as possible
A language feature that appears simple and easy to learn surprises and delights the programmer with its unexpected power. I nominate Haskell type classes :-)
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
One of the key properties to designing comprehensible software (and, indeed, designing anything at all) is to develop a good set of abstractions. These days, those abstractions include things like functions, classes, interfaces, recursion, and higher-order functions. But what else is there? How can we further abstract our designs, so that I needn't think about anything but my immediate, direct goal? What novel abstractions have yet to be leveraged by existing technologies?
Also note that most of the items on my list (with the exception, perhaps, of recursion) are also tools used for code reuse. Code reuse is not the subject of this question, and is not what I see as a necessary aspect of a good abstraction. Functions are useful as abstractions because they hide what they are doing behind a descriptive name, not because I can call them from several different places.
A poorly-formed idea: Is a driver function that only calls a sequence of other functions, without maintaining any state of its own, really the same as a function? We write it as a function, and call it as a function, but perhaps it represents a different concept? This is reflected in some languages by making a distinctions between procedures returning values and procedures not returning values. But maybe there's a better way to view that difference, some different way to abstract the sequence of relatively unrelated steps?
So to reiterate, how can future programming languages better facilitate abstraction?
A powerful absraction tool, Lisp macros. Why not look into the past and present? :)
They can use self-exposing semantics to better allow metaprogramming of the environment/language presented as the end-user interface. Mutable language semantics.
Some areas that I think are potentially fruitful:
Intentional Programming, or something similar. Charles Simonyi's company Intentional Software has been keeping pretty quiet for a while but is now starting to show some promising early demonstrations.
Functional Programming: ideas from functional programming are increasingly finding their way into more mainstream languages like Python, C# (Linq, lambdas, etc.) and even C++ (lambdas in C++ 0x). F# is becoming a first class .NET language with full support in Visual Studio. The rise of multi core development is another factor driving the wider adoption of functional concepts.
Domain Specific Languages (DSLs): closely related to the ideas behind Intentional Programming, Microsoft seem to be putting some effort into supporting DSLs as part of the .NET ecosystem.
Much more sophisticated IDEs. There are already some positive developments with refactoring tools in IDEs like Visual Studio and IntelliJ but I think there's a lot of room for progress in this area. Moving away from dumb text source files towards something more like an abstract syntax tree representation could make it much easier to work at a higher level of abstraction. Again, this connects with many of the ideas behind Intentional Programming.
By having built in detection of stupid ideas that, when tripped, lock the developer out of the IDE and refuse to let them code ever again.
OOP facilitates abstraction quite nicely. It's developers that come up with poorly formed ideas.
Let's see, how about if we make abstraction mandatory for every data type, and then provide ways of generalizing our abstractions over type parameters? Wait! I've just reinvented CLU. Do I get a Turing Award?
Anyone interested in the role of abstraction in programming should study CLU.
Eiffel code proofs. (warning: link to PDF!)
Functional programming, aspect oriented programming, design by contract and generally everything that takes us away from the dark age of imperative programming.
Also, I hope non - managed software development will cease to exist. C++ and other low level stuff makes me sad. :-(
I like my LINQ, my lambda operator, my extension methods and my fluent interfaces. Oh, and I love PostSharp.NET. And F#, but I guess it's very hard NOT to love F#. :-)
I will give an indirect answer. Before we can develop better constructions in programming languages, we must first understand the theory of abstraction.
Oh yes, there is an actual theory which predates modern computing, it is called category theory.