Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm just starting to look into the world of Functional Reactive Programming in Haskell, and I would like to experiment with GUI programming (with gtk, because of substantial binding) in a reactional setting.
Now, I've been looking a bit at Grapefruit, Reactive-Banana and Buster, and I would like any testament to the joy/horror of using any one or other package.
All I have is these preliminary oppinions:
I don't mind doing some of the binding of the FRP package to gtk myself, as I have an ambivalet feeling about the abstracted backend idea (that Grapefruit has)..
While I find type theory interesting, I also value simple encodings for actual programs, which seems to put grapfruit-records a bit off..
That is, unless of course some of you persuades me to think otherwise :-)
If you just want to use regular FRP, and stay close to the GUI framework rather than using a "pre-made" abstraction over it, reactive-banana is the most viable option, in my opinion. It's explicitly geared around binding to existing frameworks, is designed for "real-world" use (not doing anything too experimental, semantically, that could cause problems), and so on.
You can take a look at reactive-banana-wx to see how to bind an event-based framework to reactive-banana. It's very simple; I wrote a quick binding to Gtk2Hs once (lost the code now, unfortunately), and the file didn't go over 50 lines. It was almost a direct transliteration of the reactive-banana-wx code.
I would recommend against using Buster, for the simple reason that it hasn't been updated since 2009, and doesn't build on GHC 7.
Other "production-oriented" FRP frameworks are sodium (similar to reactive-banana, but it has dynamic event switching (which is coming to reactive-banana soon, but isn't in yet) and a concept of "partitions" for concurrency; however, it's just come out and hasn't seen adoption yet) and netwire (arrowised FRP, quite a different creature to reactive-banana and sodium).
I've been experimenting with FRP myself and so far the only one that's worked for me is Reactive-Banana. I never looked into Grapefruit or most of the others because they were out of date and didn't seem like they were likely to be updated or supported at all. I did briefly look at netwire, but frankly all the arrow theory in it put me off and I had a lot of trouble figuring out how to do even simple things.
In contrast I've managed to get a pretty good set of bindings to SDL written in Reactive-Banana with only a few hiccups along the way. Another thing in favor of Reactive-Banana is that Heinreich is very active in the community and will often provide helpful answers when you run into problems. Just look through the various reactive-banana questions on here and you'll see he's responded to quite a few of them and he's usually very active in FRP discussions in the Haskell mailing lists.
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
Disclaimer: Yes I know this will take 3 years, at least.
I am looking forward to writing a new interpreted programming language. I have a quite solid idea of what I want in terms of dynamicness, syntax, object model, etc, etc.
Now that I have the idea, I have a few questions before I start:
Should I begin writing the full specification and then implement, or write them both all along?
I'm still doubting between C and C++. C++ would allow for more clean design and faster development while C would (maybe) ensure portability to more platforms (microprocessors?). Performance is a must.
Should I try to interest people for the project before the first working prototype so they can cooperate (the end product will be a liberal license anyway), or keep working alone until I have something that runs?
How modular should it be? I am sure that I won't immediately start working on a bytecode interpreter but something easier to implement but slower thing first, so modularity is a must in order to be able to extend later, but I guess overdoing it will hamper performance and clearity.
The answers to your questions depend largely on why you're doing this- the primary reason. Are you trying to create the next Ruby, or is this a learning exercise?
Specification: If this is a personal project, this is not as important. PHP gets a bad rap for having been developed "on the fly," yet many people use it every day. A more complete spec will probably help get people involved if/when you want help.
If you want cross-platform and performance, C is the way to go.
If you want people to join in, prove something first. Write a killer-cool application with your language and blog/talk about why your language is different/special/better.
Modularity of what, the language itself or the compiler? If you want to extend the language, a good spec will help (see #1.) The compiler should be designed with all the best practices in mind, which should help make it extensible.
I hear the Dragon Book is good for learning to develop compilers.
Your specification will be broken unless you write it hand-in-hand with the implementation.
If you think C++ would give you cleaner design and faster development, you should probably use it.
You will have difficulty getting anyone interested in a project unless there is something that runs and demonstrates what is unique about your language.
If you think your language will ever require a byte-code interpreter (and you do say "Performance is a must") you should investigate the capabilities of existing byte-code interpreters before you finalize your language design.
I think you have set yourself too many goals. You say "performance is a must" but in a comment reply you say your goal is "to learn a lot about language design" and that it is "pretty unlikely" that you'll use it in a real project. New programming languages are created to solve problems; more precisely, they're created to help people express solutions to problems in better ways. Designing a language without using it seriously, intensely, continually is like writing software without any test cases: you're likely to wind up with something unusable.
If you want to try your hand at language design, then find a problem---one that you care about---that existing languages won't let you solve the way you want. Then do whatever you can to get a working implementation and start writing and running programs using it. You don't need a hand-crafted JIT compiler with a runtime written in highly bummed assembly code. If you target the JVM or .NET, you get a very high-performance GC, scalable threading system, libraries, and lots of other good stuff for free, even if it interferes with that awesome idea you had for ______.
On the other hand, if you just want to make something run fast, don't try to design a language at the same time. Just find one that you like, learn about implementation strategies, and see if you can do better.
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 does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
We don’t allow questions seeking recommendations for books, tools, software libraries, and more. You can edit the question so it can be answered with facts and citations.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
I would like to write an interactive song. It would contain state and logic. A listener/user should be able to modify some state vars using a GUI or a MIDI interface. Listener accessible vars don't have to directly represent tempo, pitch or any other music property. They would rather represent values that logic would process in order to make changes to the song.
Do I have to write such platform myself or something fitting my imagination already exists?
Look at cSounds and PureData.
If you are happy to use Java, check out JFugue.
I have tried PureData, CSound and SuperCollider.
CSound is very cumbersome to program in, and has had severe stability issues for my requirements (24bit/96kHz realtime low latency linux) in version 4.
PureData is graphical, which makes it even harder to keep code neat and tidy then with text files. Composing is a pain because you have to build your own composition GUI, which can be powerful, but as long as I'm my only user I find it's just faster to use text.
The winner hands down is SuperCollider, because it is a smalltalk inspired object oriented language which is quite pleasant to work with. It is split into an OSC controlled sound server, and the client language. I can recommend the sound synthesis server and using the language to create instruments without reservation for its excellent stability, great flexibility and incredible power. I've used it live on stage and the performance is incredibly good.
The score creation language suffers from many-hands syndrome; in lack of recent clear leadership there are too many ways to do too many things with too many limitations, but it is still better than CSound because at least you can use reasonable high level structures.
Still looking for a composition language that just gets it right.
Have a look at Strasheela:
It's a composition system based on the programming language Oz. Learning Oz isn't easy, as it it combines the functional and the logic programming paradigm. However if you liked the SICP book, then you will probably like it too.
Strasheela treats music composition as a Constraint Statisfaction Problem (CSP), and seeks "solutions" for it. It means that the music style is defined as mathematical constraints on integer numbers (finite domain), that must be statisfied, and the built-in constraint solving system computes the solutions "automatically".
P.S.: I cannot program in Oz, but I'm on my way of learning it.
See High level languages for Computer Music and Programming Languages used for music for help.
I am not sure if it covers what you are after for, but have a look at Java Sound API. For a FAQ about what it can do see here. The benefits are that is already bundled in the SDK and JRE and that is cross platform. Also, you could build the GUI using any Java toolkit.
If it weren't for the interactive bits, I'd suggest looking at Haskore or Nyquist, both effectively being DSLs for music generation.
Definitely take a look at Alex McLean's livecoding demos, though. It's more flexible and interactive as you can possibly imagine, using SuperCollider through OpenSoundControl.
Answer is for .NET:
I found something, checkout NAudio by Mark Heath, a great .NET music library I would say it should be contained in the BCL.
midi-dot-net is another great C# project by Tom Lokovic.
For music interaction, PureData, Max/MSP and OpenMusic (these two last are from IRCAM) are the best. PureData is freeware. Google them!
I don't really get what you want to do, but here is a list of some CL music software, both for composition and cognition: http://www.cliki.net/Music
You're looking for an Audio Programming Language. Another option you should consider is Processing - used by many artists and musicians for this type of work.
-Adam
Its a shame that none said about Chuck................
Chuck is a programming language that is specifically built for music/audio generation and composition.
You can download Chuck at http://chuck.stanford.edu
its a lot easier to use,and is a lot familiar to c,c++,java etc,however its easier to learn too.You can find at Coursera about chuck for free from California arts university,link here.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 8 years ago.
Improve this question
Functional languages are good because they avoid bugs by eliminating state, but also because they can be easily parallelized automatically for you, without you having to worry about the thread count.
As a Win32 developer though, can I use Haskell for some DLL files of my application? And if I do, is there a real advantage that would be taken automatically for me? If so, what gives me this advantage? The compiler?
Does F# parallelize functions you write across multiple cores and CPUs automatically for you? Would you ever see the thread count in Task Manager increase?
How can I start using Haskell in a practical way, and will I really see some benefits if I do?
It seems like the book Real World Haskell is just what you're looking for. You can read it free online.
F# does not contain any magic pixie dust that will pass functions off to different CPUs or machines. F#/Haskell and other functional programming languages make it easier for you to write functions that can be processed independent of the thread or CPU they were created on.
I don't feel right posting a link here to a podcast I participate in. It seems a little off, but in the Herding Code episode, where we talked with Matt Podwysocki, we asked the same question and he gave some interesting answers. There are also a lot of good links relating to functional programming in that episode. I found one link titled "Why Functional Programming Matters". That may provide some answers for you.
This might also be interesting:
"Real World Functional Programming"
Examples are in F# and C#, but the theory is fairly generic.
From what I've read (pre-release) it is definitely interesting, but so far I think it is making me want to stick more and more with C#, using libraries like Parallel Extensions.
You didn't mention, but I'm assuming, that you're using C++. One potentially easy way to get into functional is via C++/CLI to F#. C++ contains "magic pixie dust" (called IJW: It Just Works) to allow you to call into and out of managed code. With this, calling F# code is almost as simple as it is from C#.
I've used this in one program (FreeSWITCH), which is written entirely in C/C++. With a single managed C++/CLI (use the /clr switch), it magically transitions into managed code, and from there, I can go load my F# plugins and execute them. To make things even easier for deployment, F# can statically link all its dependencies, so you don't need to deploy the F# runtime files. One other thing that makes CLR code attractive is that you can pass managed code (delegates) to C code, and the runtime automatically makes a thunk for you.
If you decide to go the Haskell way, the feature you'll be looking for is FFI: Foreign Function Interface. However, I don't think it'll give you the same level of integration as C++/CLI with F#.
I'm currently learning Haskell myself. When you start out learning it, it doesn't seem very intriguing, because the learning experience is nothing like learning a language like C#.
It's a whole new world, but I noticed I could write very very complex expressions in just a few lines of code. When I looked back at the code, it was much more concise; it was small and tight.
I'm absolutely loving it! You can indeed write real-world programs that will be smaller, easier to maintain, and much more complex than most other languages allow. I vote for you to learn it!!
Since you mention Win32 and DLLs, I presume you're working with unmanaged code. In that case, GHC will work very well for you. Late last year I wrote a DDE server under Windows using FFI to talk to the Microsoft DDE libraries, and, surprisingly, it was an extremely pleasant experience (especially given that I'm a Unix guy).
Haskell's FFI is powerful (even supporting, e.g., callbacks into Haskell functions from C or other libraries), and having Haskell's type checking when writing C-level code is like a dream come true.
That last point is one of the major advantages of Haskell: the type system is amazing. That said, it's like any powerful tool; it needs time and effort to make good use of it.
So yes, it is possible to start out writing small bits of code in Haskell that link into the rest of your code (though you may find it easier to start with small Haskell programs that link to your other code), and it's well worth spending a fair amount of time learning about this and using it wherever you can. You may end up like me, planning a fairly major project tightly integrated with Windows code (in my case, a sophisticated Excel add-in) in Haskell.