Related
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.
So, I am writing some sort of a statistics program (actually I am redesigning it to something more elegant) and I thought I should use a language that was created for that kind of stuff (dealing with huge data of stats, connections between them and some sort of genetic/neural programming).
To tell you the truth, I just want an excuse to dive into lisp/smalltalk (aren't smalltalk/lisp/clojure the same? - like python and ruby? -semantics-wise) but I also want a language to be easily understood by other people that are fond of the BASIC language (that's why I didn't choose LISP - yet :D).
I also checked Prolog and it seems a pretty cool language (easy to do relations between data and easier than Lisp) but I'd like to hear what you think.
Thx
Edit:
I always confuse common lisp with Smalltalk. Sorry for putting these two langs together. Also what I meant by "other people that are fond of the BASIC language" is that I don't prefer a language with semantics like lisp (for people with no CS background) and I find Prolog a little bit more intuitive (but that's my opinion after I just messed a little bit with both of them).
Is there any particular reason not to use R? It's sort of a build vs. buy (or in this case download) decision. If you're doing a statistical computation, R has many packages off the shelf. These include many libraries and interfaces for various types of data sources. There are also interface libraries for embedding R in other languages such as Python, so you can build a hybrid application with a GUI in Python (for example) and a core computation engine using R.
In this case, you could possibly reduce the effort needed for implementation and wind up with a more flexible application.
If you've got your heart set on learning another language, by all means, do it. There are several good free (some as in speech, some as in beer) implementations of Smalltalk, Prolog and LISP.
If you're putting a user interface on the system, Smalltalk might be the better option. If you want to create large rule sets as a part of your application, Prolog is designed for this sort of thing. Various people have written about the LISP ephiphany that influences the way you think about programming but I can't really vouch for this from experience - I've only really used AutoLISP for writing automation scripts on AutoCAD.
At the risk of offending some, I have a hard time reconciling "easily understood by other people that are fond of the BASIC language" with any of the languages you mentioned. That's not intended as a criticism, but as an observation that each of the languages you mention has a style and natural idiom that's quite different from that of BASIC.
Smalltalk - pure OO from the ground up, usually (e.g. Squeak) coupled with an integrated environment that is simultaneously the IDE and the runtime. IOW you enter the Smalltalk VM and work inside it rather than just writing a text that is "source code".
LISP - much closer to functional programming (although with imperative overtones); the prefix notation is the first barrier to most people who "like" other languages, but the concept and use of macros is a much more substantial one.
Clojure - The combination of LISP, OO, and JVM integration makes this one even less BASIC-like.
Python and Ruby - I lump these together (at the risk of further annoying fans of either ;-) because they are both OO language with distinct notations that will take an outsider a bit of learning curve. The use of indentation-only for control nesting in Python and the Perl-like use of special characters in Ruby are often points of the complaint by newcomers. Although both can be written in an imperative style, that would be considered non-standard by seasoned users.
Prolog - This is the most unlike BASIC of all languages mentioned. All of the other languages you mentioned can be (ab)used in a semi-procedural style, but that is essentially impossible in Prolog. It requires a thorough understanding of, and comfort with, recursion to do anything non-trivial.
Code written with a "native accent" in essentially all of these languages (but especially Prolog, IMHO) will make use of idioms and concepts that are outside the norm for conventional BASIC programming. Put another way, if you pick one of these and then write code "with a BASIC accent" you've pretty much wasted the benefits that the language can offer.
I believe that all of them are worth learning for the concepts they can teach (or at least reinforce, depending on your background). But the similarity to Language X (for a wide range of values of X) is not what you'll get.
I can answer you partially
(aren't Smalltalk/Lisp/Clojure the same? - like python and ruby? -semantics-wise)
No, it is not. Smalltalk is OO language with message pass instead method calls. Lisp is Lisp ;-) It means truly functional language with the powerful macro system, OO support which is never seen in other languages (in CL) and many more features. Closure is Lisp-like language without many Lisp features but good integration to JVM. It's not supporting tail call optimization for example. And python or ruby are classic imperative OO languages with some limited functional ability. Note word limited. For example, Guido doesn't like functional programming and removed some functional features in version 2.5 and 2.6.
If you familiar with imperative procedural programming as in Python and you want to change your paradigm you should make your decision carefully.
Prolog is a very different language. It can be very hard to grasp, mainly because it relies heavily on recursion to do very basic tasks. If you are really willing then give it a go. It can be very powerful because it allows to expess relationships and solve complicated problems simply, typical examples are Towers of Hanoi or quicksort. It will change the way you think, which can be difficult if you are used to imperative languages.
If you're interested in Prolog then there's a free version of Visual Prolog available and the commercial version is reasonably priced.
It's a strong type offshoot of Prolog so isn't your classic implementation of the language, but has a respectable history - Borland marketed the DOS ancestor of it as Turbo-Prolog back in the late '80s.
It's also Windows only, but can be used to create standard Windows DLLs so you can link your code into a 'normal' windows programming language. I've never used the package in anger myself, but I did a couple of Prolog courses at Uni so have downloaded it from time to time to play with and look for possible uses and it looks solid enough. Might be just the set of cogs you're looking for.
Lisp developed a set of interesting language features quite early on in the academic world, but most of them never caught on in production environments.
Some languages, like JavaScript, adapted basic features like garbage collection and lexical closures, but all the stuff that might actually change how you write programs on a large scale, like powerful macros, the code-as-data thing and custom control structures, only seems to propagate within other functional languages, none of which are practical to use for non-trivial projects.
The functional programming community also came up with a lot of other interesting ideas (apart from functional programming itself), like referential transparency, generalised case-expressions (ie, pattern-matching, not crippled like C/C# switches) and curried functions, which seem obviously useful in regular programming and should be easy to integrate with existing programming practice, but for some reason seem to be stuck in the academic world forever.
Why do these features have such a hard time getting adopted? Are there any modern, practical languages that actually learn from Lisp instead of half-assedly copying "first class functions", or is there an inherent conflict that makes this impossible?
Are there any modern, practical
languages that actually learn from
Lisp instead of half-assedly copying
"first class functions", or is there
an inherent conflict that makes this
impossible?
Why aren't lisp, haskell, ocaml, or f# modern?
You might just need to take it on yourself and look at them and realize that they are more robust, with libraries like java, then you'd think.
A lot of features have been adopted from functional languages to other languages. But vice versa -- (some) functional languages have objects, for example.
I suggest you try Clojure. Syntactically beautiful dialect, functional (in the ML sense), and fast. You get immutability, software transactional memory, multiversion concurrency control, a REPL, SLIME support, and an inexhaustible FFI. It's the Lisp (& Haskell) for the Business Programmer. I'm having a great time using it daily in my real job.
There is no known correlation between a language "catching on" and whether or not is has powerful, well researched, well designed features.
A lot has been said on the subject. It exists all over the place in technology, and also the arts. We know artist A has more training and produces works of greater breadth and depth than artist B, yet artist B is far more successful in the marketplace. Is it because there's a zeitgeist? Is is because artist B has better marketing? Is it because most people won't take the time to understand artist A? Maybe artist B is secretly awful and we should mistrust experts who make judgements about artists? Probably all of the above, to some degree or another.
This drives people who study the arts, and people who study programming languages, crazy.
Scala is a cool functional/OO language with pattern matching, first class functions, and the like. It has the advantage of compiling to Java bytecode and inter-operates well with Java code.
Common Lisp, used in the real-world albeit not wildely so, I guess.
Python or Ruby. See Paul Graham's thoughts on this in the question "I like Lisp but my company won't let me use it. What should I do?".
Scala is the absolute king of languages which have adopted significant academic features. Higher kinds, self types, polymorphic pattern matching, etc. All of these are bleeding-edge (or near to it) academic research topics that have been incorporated into Scala as fundamental features. Arguably, this has been to the detriment of the langauge's simplicity, but it does lead to some very interesting patterns.
C# is more mainstream than Scala, but it also has adopted fewer of these "out-there" functional features. LINQ is a limited implementation for Wadler's generalized list comprehensions, and everyone knows about lambdas. But for all that, C# (rightfully) remains a bit conservative in adopting research features from the academic world.
Erlang has recently gained renewed exposure not only through being used by Twitter, but also by the rise of XMPP driven messaging and implementations such as ejabberd. It sports many of the ideas coming from functional programming being a language designed with that in mind. Initially used to run Telephone switches and conceived by Ericson to run the first GSM networks. It is still around, it is fully functional (as a language) and used in many production environments.
Lua.
It's used as a scripting/extension language for a number of games (like World of Worcraft), and applications (Snort, NMAP, Wireshark, etc). In fact, according to an Adobe developer, Adobe's Lightroom is over 40% Lua.
The guys behind Lua have repeatedly listed Scheme and Lisp as major influences on Lua, and Lua has even been described as Scheme without the parentheses.
Have you checked out F#
Lot's of dynamic programming languages implement ideas from functional programming. The newer .Net languages (C# and VB) have what they call lambda's but these aren't side effect free.
It's not difficult combining concepts from functional programming and object oriented programming for example but it doesn't always make a lot of sense. Object oriented languages (try to) encapsulate state inside objects while functional languages encapsulate state inside functions. If you combine objects and functions in one language it gets harder to make sense of all this.
There have been a lot of languages that have combined these paradigms by just throwing them together (F#) and this can be usefull but I think we still need a couple of decades of playing with languages like this untill we can create a new paradigm that succesfully will combine the ideas from oo and functional programming.
C# 3.0 definitely does.
C# now has
Lambda Expressions
Higher Order Functions
Map / Reduce + Filter ( Folding?) to lists and all types which implement IEnumerable.
LINQ
Object + Collection Initializers.
The last two list items may not fall under proper functional programming, anyways the answer is C# has implemented many useful concepts from Lisp etc.
In addition to what was said, a lot of LISP goodness is based on guaranteed lack of side-effects and using built-in data structures. Both rarely hold in real world. ML is probably better functional base.
Lisp developed a set of interesting language features quite early on in the academic
world, but most of them never caught on in production environments.
Because the kind of people who manage software developers aren't the kinds of people who you can have an interesting chat comparing different language features with. Around 2000, I wanted to use LISP to implement XML-to-HTML transforms on our corporate website (this is around the time of Amazon implementing their backend in LISP). I didn't get to. This is mildly ironic seeing as the company I was working for made and sold a Common LISP environment.
Another "real-world" language that implements functional programming features is Javascript. Since absolutely everything has a value, then high-order functions are easily implemented. You also have other tenants of functional programming such as lambda functions, closures, and currying.
The features you refer to ("powerful" macros, the code-as-data thing and custom control structures) have not propagated within other functional languages. They died after Lisp taught us that they are a bad idea.
Modern functional languages (OCaml, Haskell, Erlang, Scala, F#, C# 3.0, JavaScript) do not have those features.
Cheers,
Jon Harrop.
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Closed 9 years ago.
Locked. This question and its answers are locked because the question is off-topic but has historical significance. It is not currently accepting new answers or interactions.
I've searched on the Internet for comparisons between F# and Haskell but haven't found anything really definitive. What are the primary differences and why would I want to choose one over the other?
Haskell is a "pure" functional language, where as F# has aspects of both imperative/OO and functional languages. Haskell also has lazy evaluation, which is fairly rare amongst functional languages.
What do these things mean? A pure functional language, means there are no side effects (or changes in shared state, when a function is called) which means that you are guaranteed that if you call f(x), nothing else happens besides returning a value from the function, such as console output, database output, changes to global or static variables.. and although Haskell can have non pure functions (through monads), it must be 'explicitly' implied through declaration.
Pure functional languages and 'No side effect' programming has gained popularity recently as it lends itself well to multi core concurrency, as it is much harder to get wrong with no shared state, rather than myriad locks & semaphores.
Lazy evaluation is where a function is NOT evaluated until it is absolutely necessary required. meaning that many operation can be avoided when not necessary. Think of this in a basic C# if clause such as this:
if(IsSomethingTrue() && AnotherThingTrue())
{
do something;
}
If IsSomethingTrue() is false then AnotherThingTrue() method is never evaluated.
While Haskell is an amazing language, the major benefit of F# (for the time being), is that it sits on top of the CLR. This lends it self to polyglot programming. One day, you may write your web UI in ASP.net MVC, your business logic in C#, your core algorithms in F# and your unit tests in Ironruby.... All amongst the the .Net framework.
Listen to the Software Engineering radio with Simon Peyton Jones for more info on Haskell: Episode 108: Simon Peyton Jones on Functional Programming and Haskell
Big differences:
Platform
Object orientation
Laziness
The similarities are more important than the differences. Basically, you should use F# if you are on .NET already, Haskell otherwise. Also, OO and laziness mean that F# is closer to what you (probably) already know, so it is probably easier to learn.
Platform : Haskell has its own runtime, F# uses .NET. I don't know what the performance difference is, although I suspect the average code is about the same before optimisation. F# has the advantage if you need the .NET libraries.
Object orientation : F# has OO, and is very careful to make sure that .NET classes are easy to use even if your code isn't OO. Haskell has type classes which let you do something like OO, in a weird sort of way. They are like Ruby mixins crossed with Common Lisp generic functions. They're a little like Java/C# interfaces.
Laziness : Haskell is lazy, F# is not. Laziness enables some nice tricks and makes some things that look slow actually execute fast. But I find it a lot harder to guess how fast my code will run. Both languages let you use the other model, you just have to be explicit about it in your code.
Minor differences:
Syntax : Haskell has slightly nicer syntax in my opinion. It's a little more terse and regular, and I like declaring types on a separate line. YMMV.
Tools : F# has excellent Visual Studio integration, if you like that sort of thing. Haskell also has an older Visual Studio plugin, but I don't think it ever got out of beta. Haskell has a simple emacs mode, and you can probably use OCaml's tuareg-mode to edit F#.
Side effects : Both languages make it pretty obvious when you are mutating variables. But Haskell's compiler also forces you to mark side effects whenever you use them. The practical difference is that you have to be a lot more aware of when you use libraries with side effects as well.
F# is part of the ML family of languages and is very close to OCaml. You may want to read this discussion on the differences between Haskell and OCaml.
A major difference, which is probably a result ofthe purity but I less see mentioned, is the pervasive use of monads. As is frequently pointed out, monads can be built in most any language, but life changes greatly when they are used pervasively throughout the libraries, and you use them yourself.
Monads provide something seen in a much more limited way in other languages: abstraction of flow control. They're incredibly useful and elegant ways of doing all sorts of things, and a year of Haskell has entirely changed the way I program, in the same way that moving from imperative to OO programming many years ago changed it, or, much later, using higher-order functions did.
Unfortunately, there's no way in a space like this to provide enough understanding to let you see what the difference is. In fact, no amount of writing will do it; you simply have to spend enough time learning and writing code to gain a real understanding.
As well, F# sometimes may become slightly less functional or more awkward (from the functional programming point of view) when you interface with the .NET platform/libraries, as the libraries were obviously designed from an OO point of view.
So you might consider your decision this way: are you looking to try out one of these languages in order to get a quick, relatively small increment of improvement, or are you willing to put in more time and get less immediate benefit for something bigger in the long term. (Or, at least, if you don't get something bigger, the easy ability to switch to the other quickly?) If the former, F# is your choice, if the latter, Haskell.
A couple of other unrelated points:
Haskell has slightly nicer syntax, which is no suprise, since the designers of Haskell knew ML quite well. However, F#'s 'light' syntax goes a long way toward improving ML syntax, so there's not a huge gap there.
In terms of platforms, F# is of course .NET; how well that will work on Mono I don't know. GHC compiles to machine code with its own runtime, working well under both Windows and Unix, which compares to .NET in the same way, that, say, C++ does. This can be an advantage in some circumstances, especially in terms of speed and lower-level machine access. (I had no problem writing a DDE server in Haskell/GHC, for example; I don't think you could do that in any .NET language, and regardless, MS certainly doesn't want you doing that.)
Well, for one I'd say a main advantage is that F# compiles against the .NET platform which makes it easy to deploy on windows. I've seen examples which explained using F# combined with ASP.NET to build web applications ;-)
On the other hand, Haskell has been around for waaaaay longer, so I think the group of people who are real experts on that language is a lot bigger.
For F# I've only seen one real implementation so far, which is the Singularity proof of concept OS. I've seen more real world implementations of Haskell.
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 9 years ago.
Improve this question
I see a lot of talk on here about functional languages and stuff. Why would you use one over a "traditional" language? What do they do better? What are they worse at? What's the ideal functional programming application?
Functional languages use a different paradigm than imperative and object-oriented languages. They use side-effect-free functions as a basic building block in the language. This enables lots of things and makes a lot of things more difficult (or in most cases different from what people are used to).
One of the biggest advantages with functional programming is that the order of execution of side-effect-free functions is not important. For example, in Erlang this is used to enable concurrency in a very transparent way.
And because functions in functional languages behave very similar to mathematical functions it's easy to translate those into functional languages. In some cases, this can make code more readable.
Traditionally, one of the big disadvantages of functional programming was also the lack of side effects. It's very difficult to write useful software without I/O, but I/O is hard to implement without side effects in functions. So most people never got more out of functional programming than calculating a single output from a single input. In modern mixed-paradigm languages like F# or Scala this is easier.
Lots of modern languages have elements from functional programming languages. C# 3.0 has a lot functional programming features and you can do functional programming in Python too. I think the reasons for the popularity of functional programming is mostly because of two reasons: Concurrency is getting to be a real problem in normal programming, because we're getting more and more multiprocessor computers; and the languages are getting more accessible.
I don't think that there's any question about the functional approach to programming "catching on", because it's been in use (as a style of programming) for about 40 years. Whenever an OO programmer writes clean code that favors immutable objects, that code is borrowing functional concepts.
However, languages that enforce a functional style are getting lots of virtual ink these days, and whether those languages will become dominant in the future is an open question. My own suspicion is that hybrid, multi-paradigm languages such as Scala or OCaml
will likely dominate over "purist" functional languages in the same way that pure OO language (Smalltalk, Beta, etc.) have influenced mainstream programming but haven't ended up as the most widely-used notations.
Finally, I can't resist pointing out that your comments re FP are highly parallel to the remarks I heard from procedural programmers not that many years ago:
The (mythical, IMHO) "average" programmer doesn't understand it.
It's not widely taught.
Any program you can write with it can be written another way with current techniques.
Just as graphical user interfaces and "code as a model of the business" were concepts that helped OO become more widely appreciated, I believe that increased use of immutability and simpler (massive) parallelism will help more programmers see the benefits that the functional approach offers. But as much as we've learned in the past 50 or so years that make up the entire history of digital computer programming, I think we still have much to learn. Twenty years from now, programmers will look back in amazement at the primitive nature of the tools we're currently using, including the now-popular OO and FP languages.
The main plus for me is its inherent parallelism, especially as we are now moving away from higher CPU clock frequency and towards more and more cores.
I don't think it will become the next programming paradigm and completely replace OO type methods, but I do think we will get to the point that we need to either write some of our code in a functional language, or our general purpose languages will grow to include more functional constructs.
Even if you never work in a functional language professionally, understanding functional programming will make you a better developer. It will give you a new perspective on your code and programming in general.
I say there's no reason to not learn it.
I think the languages that do a good job of mixing functional and imperative style are the most interesting and are the most likely to succeed.
I'm always skeptical about the Next Big Thing. Lots of times the Next Big Thing is pure accident of history, being there in the right place at the right time no matter whether the technology is good or not. Examples: C++, Tcl/Tk, Perl. All flawed technologies, all wildly successful because they were perceived either to solve the problems of the day or to be nearly identical to entrenched standards, or both. Functional programming may indeed be great, but that doesn't mean it will be adopted.
But I can tell you why people are excited about functional programming: many, many programmers have had a kind of "conversion experience" in which they discover that using a functional language makes them twice as productive (or maybe ten times as productive) while producing code that is more resilient to change and has fewer bugs. These people think of functional programming as a secret weapon; a good example of this mindset is Paul Graham's Beating the Averages. Oh, and his application? E-commerce web apps.
Since early 2006 there has also been some buzz about functional programming and parallelism. Since people like Simon Peyton Jones have been worrying about parallelism off and on since at least 1984, I'm not holding my breath until functional languages solve the multicore problem. But it does explain some of the additional buzz right about now.
In general, American universities are doing a poor job teaching functional programming. There's a strong core of support for teaching intro programming using Scheme, and Haskell also enjoys some support there, but there's very little in the way of teaching advanced technique for functional programmer. I've taught such a course at Harvard and will do so again this spring at Tufts. Benjamin Pierce has taught such a course at Penn. I don't know if Paul Hudak has done anything at Yale. The European universities are doing a much better job; for example, functional programming is emphasized in important places in Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the UK. I have less of a sense of what's happening in Australasia.
I don't see anyone mentioning the elephant in the room here, so I think it's up to me :)
JavaScript is a functional language. As more and more people do more advanced things with JS, especially leveraging the finer points of jQuery, Dojo, and other frameworks, FP will be introduced by the web-developer's back-door.
In conjunction with closures, FP makes JS code really light, yet still readable.
Cheers,
PS
Most applications are simple enough to be solved in normal OO ways
OO ways have not always been "normal." This decade's standard was last decade's marginalized concept.
Functional programming is math. Paul Graham on Lisp (replace Lisp by functional programming):
So the short explanation of why this
1950s language is not obsolete is that
it was not technology but math, and
math doesn’t get stale. The right
thing to compare Lisp to is not 1950s
hardware, but, say, the Quicksort
algorithm, which was discovered in
1960 and is still the fastest
general-purpose sort.
I bet you didn't know you were functional programming when you used:
Excel formulas
Quartz Composer
JavaScript
Logo (Turtle graphics)
LINQ
SQL
Underscore.js (or Lodash),
D3
The average corporate programmer, e.g.
most of the people I work with, will
not understand it and most work
environments will not let you program
in it
That one is just a matter of time though. Your average corporate programmer learns whatever the current Big Thing is. 15 years ago, they didn't understand OOP.
If functional programming catches on, your "average corporate programmers" will follow.
It's not really taught at universities
(or is it nowadays?)
It varies a lot. At my university, SML is the very first language students are introduced to.
I believe MIT teaches Lisp as a first-year course. These two examples may not be representative, of course, but I believe most universities at the very least offer some optional courses on functional programming, even if they don't make it a mandatory part of the curriculum.
Most applications are simple enough to
be solved in normal OO ways
It's not really a matter of "simple enough" though. Would a solution be simpler (or more readable, robust, elegant, performant) in functional programming? Many things are "simple enough to be solved in Java", but it still requires a godawful amount of code.
In any case, keep in mind that functional programming proponents have claimed that it was the Next Big Thing for several decades now. Perhaps they're right, but keep in mind that they weren't when they made the same claim 5, 10 or 15 years ago.
One thing that definitely counts in their favor, though, is that recently, C# has taken a sharp turn towards functional programming, to the extent that it's practically turning a generation of programmers into functional programming programmers, without them even noticing. That might just pave the way for the functional programming "revolution". Maybe. ;)
Man cannot understand the perfection and imperfections of his chosen art if he cannot see the value in other arts. Following rules only permits development up to a point in technique and then the student and artist has to learn more and seek further. It makes sense to study other arts as well as those of strategy.
Who has not learned something more about themselves by watching the activities of others? To learn the sword study the guitar. To learn the fist study commerce. To just study the sword will make you narrow-minded and will not permit you to grow outward.
-- Miyamoto Musashi, "A Book of Five Rings"
One key feature in a functional language is the concept of first-class functions. The idea is that you can pass functions as parameters to other functions and return them as values.
Functional programming involves writing code that does not change state. The primary reason for doing so is so that successive calls to a function will yield the same result. You can write functional code in any language that supports first-class functions, but there are some languages, like Haskell, which do not allow you to change state. In fact, you're not supposed to make any side effects (like printing out text) at all - which sounds like it could be completely useless.
Haskell instead employs a different approach to I/O: monads. These are objects that contain the desired I/O operation to be executed by your interpreter's toplevel. At any other level they are simply objects in the system.
What advantages does functional programming provide? Functional programming allows coding with fewer potentials for bugs because each component is completely isolated. Also, using recursion and first-class functions allows for simple proofs of correctness which typically mirror the structure of the code.
I don't think most realistic people think that functional programming will catch on (becomes the main paradigm like OO). After all, most business problems are not pretty math problems but hairy imperative rules to move data around and display them in various ways, which means it's not a good fit for pure functional programming paradigm (the learning curve of monad far exceeds OO.)
OTOH, functional programming is what makes programming fun. It makes you appreciate the inherent, timeless beauty of succinct expressions of the underlying math of the universe. People say that learning functional programming will make you a better programmer. This is of course highly subjective. I personally don't think that's completely true either.
It makes you a better sentient being.
I'd point out that everything you've said about functional languages, most people were saying about object-oriented langauges about 20 years ago. Back then it was very common to hear about OO:
* The average corporate programmer, e.g. most of the people I work with, will not understand it and most work environments will not let you program in it
* It's not really taught at universities (or is it nowadays?)
* Most applications are simple enough to be solved in normal IMPERATIVE ways
Change has to come from somewhere. A meaningful and important change will make itself happen regardless of whether people trained in earlier technologies take the opinion that change isn't necessary. Do you think the change to OO was good despite all the people that were against it at the time?
I must be dense, but I still don't get it. Are there any actual examples of small application's written in a functional language like F# where you can look at the source code and see how and why it was better to use such an approach than, say, C#?
F# could catch on because Microsoft is pushing it.
Pro:
F# is going to be part of next version of Visual Studio
Microsoft is building community for some time now - evangelists, books, consultants that work with high profile customers, significant exposure at MS conferences.
F# is first class .NET language and it's the first functional language that comes with really big foundation (not that I say that Lisp, Haskell, Erlang, Scala, OCaml do not have lots of libraries, they are just not as complete as .NET is)
Strong support for parallelism
Contra:
F# is very hard to start even if you are good with C# and .NET - at least for me :(
it will probably be hard to find good F# developers
So, I give 50:50 chance to F# to become important. Other functional languages are not going to make it in near future.
I think one reason is that some people feel that the most important part of whether a language will be accepted is how good the language is. Unfortunately, things are rarely so simple. For example, I would argue that the biggest factor behind Python's acceptance isn't the language itself (although that is pretty important). The biggest reason why Python is so popular is its huge standard library and the even bigger community of third-party libraries.
Languages like Clojure or F# may be the exception to the rule on this considering that they're built upon the JVM/CLR. As a result, I don't have an answer for them.
It seems to me that those people who never learned Lisp or Scheme as an undergraduate are now discovering it. As with a lot of things in this field there is a tendency to hype and create high expectations...
It will pass.
Functional programming is great. However, it will not take over the world. C, C++, Java, C#, etc will still be around.
What will come of this I think is more cross-language ability - for example implementing things in a functional language and then giving access to that stuff in other languages.
When reading "The Next Mainstream Programming Language: A Game Developer’s Perspective" by Tim Sweeney, Epic Games, my first thought was - I got to learn Haskell.
PPT
Google's HTML Version
Most applications can be solved in [insert your favorite language, paradigm, etc. here].
Although, this is true, different tools can be used to solve different problems. Functional just allows another high (higher?) level abstraction that allows to do our jobs more effectively when used correctly.
Things have been moving in a functional direction for a while. The two cool new kids of the past few years, Ruby and Python, are both radically closer to functional languages than what came before them — so much so that some Lispers have started supporting one or the other as "close enough."
And with the massively parallel hardware putting evolutionary pressure on everyone — and functional languages in the best place to deal with the changes — it's not as far a leap as it once was to think that Haskell or F# will be the next big thing.
It's catching on because it's the best tool around for controlling complexity.
See:
- slides 109-116 of Simon Peyton-Jones talk "A Taste of Haskell"
- "The Next Mainstream Programming Language: A Game Developer's Perspective" by Tim Sweeney
Check out Why Functional Programming Matters.
Have you been following the evolution of programming languages lately? Every new release of all mainstream programming languages seems to borrow more and more features from functional programming.
Closures, anonymous functions, passing and returning functions as values used to be exotic features known only to Lisp and ML hackers. But gradually, C#, Delphi, Python, Perl, JavaScript, have added support for closures. It's not possible for any up-and-coming language to be taken seriously without closures.
Several languages, notably Python, C#, and Ruby have native support for list comprehensions and list generators.
pioneered generic programming in 1973, but support for generics ("parametric polymorphism") has only become an industry standard in the last 5 years or so. If I remember correctly, Fortran supported generics in 2003, followed by Java 2004, C# in 2005, Delphi in 2008. (I know C++ has supported templates since 1979, but 90% of discussions on C++'s STL start with "here there be demons".)
What makes these features appealing to programmers? It should be plainly obvious: it helps programmers write shorter code. All languages in the future are going to support—at a minimum—closures if they want to stay competitive. In this respect, functional programming is already in the mainstream.
Most applications are simple enough to
be solved in normal OO ways
Who says can't use functional programming for simple things too? Not every functional program needs to be a compiler, theorem prover, or massively parallel telecommunications switch. I regularly use F# for ad hoc throwaway scripts in addition to my more complicated projects.
Wow - this is an interesting discussion. My own thoughts on this:
FP makes some tasks relatively simple (compared to none-FP languages).
None-FP languages are already starting to take ideas from FP, so I suspect that this trend will continue and we will see more of a merge which should help people make the leap to FP easier.
I don't know whether it will catch on or not, but from my investigations, a functional language is almost certainly worth learning, and will make you a better programmer. Just understanding referential transparency makes a lot of design decisions so much easier- and the resulting programs much easier to reason about. Basically, if you run into a problem, then it tends to only be a problem with the output of a single function, rather than a problem with an inconsistant state, which could have been caused by any of the hundreds of classes/methods/functions in an imparative language with side effects.
The stateless nature of FP maps more naturally to the stateless nature of the web, and thus functional languages lend themselves more easily to more elegant, RESTFUL webapps. Contrast with JAVA and .NET frameworks that need to resort to horribly ugly HACKS like VIEWSTATE and SESSION keys to maintain application state, and maintain the (occasionally quite leaky) abstraction of a stateful imperative language, on an essentially stateless functional platform like the web.
And also, the more stateless your application, the more easily it can lend itself to parallel processing. Terribly important for the web, if your website happens to get popular. It's not always straightforward to just add more hardware to a site to get better performance.
My view is that it will catch on now that Microsoft have pushed it much further into the mainstream. For me it's attractive because of what it can do for us, because it's a new challenge and because of the job opportunities it resents for the future.
Once mastered it will be another tool to further help make us more productive as programmers.
A point missed in the discussion is that the best type systems are found in contemporary FP languages. What's more, compilers can infer all (or at least most) types automatically.
It is interesting that one spends half the time writing type names when programming Java, yet Java is by far not type safe. While you may never write types in a Haskell programm (except as a kind of compiler checked documentation) and the code is 100% type safe.
I agree with the first point, but times change. Corporations will respond, even if they're late adopters, if they see that there's an advantage to be had. Life is dynamic.
They were teaching Haskell and ML at Stanford in the late 1990s. I'm sure that places like Carnegie Mellon, MIT, Stanford, and other good schools are presenting it to students.
I agree that most "expose relational databases on the web" applications will continue in that vein for a long time. Java EE, .NET, Ruby on Rails, and PHP have evolved some pretty good solutions to that problem.
You've hit on something important: It might be the problem that can't be solved easily by other means that will boost functional programming. What would that be?
Will massive multicore hardware and cloud computing push them along?
Because functional programming has significant benefits in terms of productivity, reliability and maintainability. Many-core may be a killer application that finally gets big corporations to switch over despite large volumes of legacy code. Furthermore, even big commercial languages like C# are taking on a distinct functional flavour as a result of many-core concerns. Side effects simply don't fit well with concurrency and parallelism.
I do not agree that "normal" programmers won't understand it. They will, just like they eventually understood OOP (which is just as mysterious and weird, if not more so).
Also, most universities do teach functional programming , many even teach it as the first programming course.
In addition to the other answers, casting the solution in pure functional terms forces one to understand the problem better. Conversely, thinking in a functional style will develop better* problem solving skills.
*Either because the functional paradigm is better or because it will afford an additional angle of attack.