Haskell has been called a "pure functional language."
What does "pure" mean in this context? What consequences does this have for a programmer?
In a pure functional language, you can't do anything that has a side effect.
A side effect would mean that evaluating an expression changes some internal state that would later cause evaluating the same expression to have a different result. In a pure functional language you can evaluate the same expression as often as you want with the same arguments, and it would always return the same value, because there is no state to change.
For example, a pure functional language cannot have an assignment operator or do input/output, although for practical purposes, even pure functional languages often call impure libraries to do I/O.
"Pure" and "functional" are two separate concepts, although one is not very useful without the other.
A pure expression is idempotent: it can be evaluated any number of times, with identical results each time. This means the expression cannot have any observable side-effects. For example, if a function mutated its arguments, set a variable somewhere, or changed behavior based on something other than its input alone, then that function call is not pure.
A functional programming language is one in which functions are first-class. In other words, you can manipulate functions with exactly the same ease with which you can manipulate all other first-class values. For example, being able to use a "function returning bool" as a "data structure representing a set" would be easy in a functional programming language.
Programming in functional programming languages is often done in a mostly-pure style, and it is difficult to be strictly pure without higher-order function manipulation enabled by functional programming languages.
Haskell is a functional programming language, in which (almost) all expressions are pure; thus, Haskell is a purely functional programming language.
A pure function is one which has no side effects — it takes a value in and gives a value back. There's no global state that functions modify. A pure functional language is one which forces functions to be pure. Purity has a number of interesting consequences, such as the fact that evaluation can be lazy — since a function call has no purpose but to return a value, then you don't need to actually execute the function if you aren't going to use its value. Thanks to this, things like recursive functions on infinite lists are common in Haskell.
Another consequence is that it doesn't matter in what order functions are evaluated — since they can't affect each other, you can do them in any order that's convenient. This means that some of the problems posed by parallel programming simply don't exist, since there isn't a "wrong" or "right" order for functions to execute.
Strictly speaking, a pure functional language is a functional language (i.e. a language where functions are first-class values) where expressions have no side effects. The term “purely functional language” is synonymous.
By this definition, Haskell is not a pure functional language. Any language in which you can write programs that display their result, read and write files, have a GUI, and so on, is not purely functional. Thus no general purpose programming language is purely functional (but there are useful domain-specific purely functional languages: they can typically be seen as embedded languages in some way).
There is a useful relaxed sense in which languages like Haskell and Erlang can be considered purely functional, but languages like ML and Scheme cannot. A language can be considered purely functional if there is a reasonably large, useful and well-characterised subset where side effects are impossible. For example, in Haskell, all programs whose type is not built from IO or other effect-denoting monad are side-effect-free. In Erlang, all programs that don't use IO-inducing libraries or concurrency features are side-effect-free (this is more of a stretch than the Haskell case). Conversely, in ML or Scheme, a side effect can be buried in any function.
By this perspective, the purely functional subset of Haskell can be seen as the embedded language to deal with the behavior inside each monad (of course this is an odd perspective, as almost all the computation is happening in this “embedded” subset), and the purely functional subset of Erlang can be seen as the embedded language do deal with local behavior.
Graham Hutton has a slightly different, and quite interesting, perspective on the topic of purely functional languages:
Sometimes, the term “purely functional” is also used in a broader sense to mean languages that might incorporate computational effects, but without altering the notion of ‘function’ (as evidenced by the fact that the essential properties of functions are preserved.) Typically, the evaluation of an expression can yield a ‘task’, which is then executed separately to cause computational effects. The evaluation and execution phases are separated in such a way that the evaluation phase does not compromise the standard properties of expressions and functions. The input/output mechanisms of Haskell, for example, are of this kind.
I.e. in Haskell, a function has the type a -> b and can't have side effects. An expression of type IO (a -> b) can have side effects, but it's not a function. Thus in Haskell functions must be pure, hence Haskell is purely functional.
As there cannot be any side effects in pure functional code, testing gets much easier as there is no external state to check or verify. Also, because of this, extending code may become easier.
I lost count of the number of times I had trouble with non-obvious side effects when extending/fixing (or trying to fix) code.
As others have mentioned, the term "pure" in "pure functional programming language" refers to the lack of observable side-effects. For me, this leads straight to the question:
What is a side-effect?
I have seen side-effects explained both as
something that a function does other than simply compute its result
something that can affect the result of a function other than the inputs to the function.
If the first definition is the correct one, then any function that does I/O (e.g. writing to a file) cannot be said to be a "pure" function. Whereas Haskell programs can call functions which cause I/O to be performed, it would seem that Haskell is not a pure functional programming language (as it is claimed to be) according to this definition.
For this and other reasons, I think the second definition is the more useful one. According to the second definition, Haskell can still claim to be a completely pure functional programming language because functions that cause I/O to be performed compute results based only on function inputs. How Haskell reconciles these seemingly conflicting requirements is quite interesting, I think, but I'll resist the temptation to stray any further from answering the actual question.
Amr Sabry wrote a paper about what a pure functional language is. Haskell is by this definition considered pure, if we ignore things like unsafePerformIO. Using this definition also makes ML and Erlang impure. There are subsets of most languages that qualify as pure, but personally I don't think it's very useful to talk about C being a pure language.
Higher-orderness is orthogonal to purity, you can design a pure first-order functional language.
Related
I have read some sources where the Haskell's paradigm is described as functional but imperative paradigm. The main source where this is said is Wikipedia. How is possible a functional and imperative paradigm at the same time, or is this a mistake?
Functional languages generally use a declarative methodology when describing their programs, and Haskell is definitely one of these languages; Haskell programs are described as a set of declarations of values (including functions, because functions are first class values).
However, in order for a computer to execute a program, it has to follow a sequence of instructions. To that end, Haskell has a way you can describe what can end up as sequencing when it's executed, in a special syntax (called "do syntax"). Each line of this syntax looks like the next "statement" in a normal imperative language, and kind of behaves that way, too. Really, though, it's just syntactic sugar for ordinary Haskell expressions of function application.
Because it's still written in Haskell, though, and Haskell values and expressions are for the most part typesafe, Haskell is often called "the best imperative language".
As long as changing the order of the atomic parts of a program can change its output, you can safely smack "imperative" on the language. Almost any high-level language is "declarative" in some way, and there are languages that support "declarative programming" better than Haskell does.
In C, for example, enums and even the switch can be "declarative", if you use it in a certain way. Much further in the "declarative" direction is Prolog, and you could write programs in a declarative style, but again, you can also use Prolog to write an imperative program.
Declarative, but there is some caveat to that.
Alonso Church created lambda calculus which Haskell is based on, and Alan Turing created the turing machine. Lambda calculus is purely functions, a turing machine changes the state of a program. Sounds familiar?
Except, it has been shown that these two are equivalent. You can build a turing machine from lambda calculus and vice versa. Which means everything inside Haskell is really just functions, but from them you can build an imperative style of programming.
So yeah, declarative. You don't tell Haskell how to do things, you tell it what a thing is and then build from it.
All of the "pure" functional languages are strong typed. Is there any link between those?
Non-trivial functional programming techniques make heavy use of first-class and higher-order functions. First-class functions are implemented as closures. Non-trivial use of first-class functions and closures is only sane when you have garbage collection. Efficient and reliable garbage collection requires memory safety (which I assume you mean by "strongly typed"). So there you go.
Purity doesn't really matter for that.
"Pure" functional languages are those which enforce referential transparency. The enforcement could be static (via the type system), or it could be dynamic (e.g. a runtime failure). I'm guessing you mean "statically typed" when you say "strongly typed"...
Sincbe the community from which typed, pure functional programming emerged is separately issued in reducing runtime failures and making programming safer adding purity without type enforcement -- such that runtime failure is still an option -- is incongruous.
So its no suprise you see types and effect typing going together with purity-by-default: it is all about reducing runtime failures.
Mercury (in which you can do functional programming, but is more of a pure logic programming language) actually has an explicit static purity system. Every predicate or function is statically known to be pure or impure (or semipure, but I'm not going to go into that in detail). Putting a call to an impure function inside a pure function (pure is the default) will result in an error detected at compile time.
It also has a static type system, in which the type of every expression/variable is statically known by the compiler, and type errors are detected at compile time. But the type system is completely independent of the purity system (in that you can have pure, impure, and semipure functions of any given type).
So we can imagine a different language with the same static purity system but in which the types of expressions/variables are not statically known, and may vary dynamically at runtime. One could even imagine such a language having "weak types" in the sense of PHP (i.e. the language will try to convert values such that operations that don't make sense on the value's type can actually be performed), or in the sense of C (i.e. you can convince the language to store values of one type in a variable the language will treat as if it were a different type).
One could also imagine a language in which the purity was not statically known but still enforced at runtime. The language would have to do something such as keeping track of whether it was in an pure call, and if so rejecting calls to impure primitive operations.
So in that sense, no there's no link between strong typing and pure programming.
However, languages which actually enforce purity (rather than merely encouraging it, as in Scala) have traditionally achieved this by static analysis. Indeed, one of the motivations for pure code is that it is much more susceptible to static analysis than code which is impure in arbitrary ways. A contrived example is that a function which takes a boolean argument and returns something can be known to return one of at most two results if it is pure; if it is not known to be pure then the language has to assume it might return something different at every single invocation.. And if you're interested in doing static analysis of your code and you have this static analysis system for enforcing purity, you might as well make it enforce type safety as well. So there's just "not that much call" for languages which enforce purity but don't have strong static type systems. I'm not aware of any that actually exist (there's not all that many languages that enforce purity at all, as far as I know).
I'm looking to learn functional programming with either Haskell or F#.
Are there any programming habits (good or bad) that could form as a result Haskell's lazy evaluation? I like the idea of Haskell's functional programming purity for the purposes of understanding functional programming. I'm just a bit worried about two things:
I may misinterpret lazy-evaluation-based features as being part of the "functional paradigm".
I may develop thought patterns that work in a lazy world but not in a normal order/eager evaluation world.
There are habits that you get into when programming in a lazy language that don't work in a strict language. Some of these seem so natural to Haskell programmers that they don't think of them as lazy evaluation. A couple of examples off the top of my head:
f x y = if x > y then .. a .. b .. else c
where
a = expensive
b = expensive
c = expensive
here we define a bunch of subexpressions in a where clause, with complete disregard for which of them will ever be evaluated. It doesn't matter: the compiler will ensure that no unnecessary work is performed at runtime. Non-strict semantics means that the compiler is able to do this. Whenever I write in a strict language I trip over this a lot.
Another example that springs to mind is "numbering things":
pairs = zip xs [1..]
here we just want to associate each element in a list with its index, and zipping with the infinite list [1..] is the natural way to do it in Haskell. How do you write this without an infinite list? Well, the fold isn't too readable
pairs = foldr (\x xs -> \n -> (x,n) : xs (n+1)) (const []) xs 1
or you could write it with explicit recursion (too verbose, doesn't fuse). There are several other ways to write it, none of which are as simple and clear as the zip.
I'm sure there are many more. Laziness is surprisingly useful, when you get used to it.
You'll certainly learn about evaluation strategies. Non-strict evaluation strategies can be very powerful for particular kinds of programming problems, and once you're exposed to them, you may be frustrated that you can't use them in some language setting.
I may develop thought patterns that work in a lazy world but not in a normal order/eager evaluation world.
Right. You'll be a more rounded programmer. Abstractions that provide "delaying" mechanisms are fairly common now, so you'd be a worse programmer not to know them.
I may misinterpret lazy-evaluation-based features as being part of the "functional paradigm".
Lazy evaluation is an important part of the functional paradigm. It's not a requirement - you can program functionally with eager evaluation - but it's a tool that naturally fits functional programming.
You see people explicitly implement/invoke it (notably in the form of lazy sequences) in languages that don't make it the default; and while mixing it with imperative code requires caution, pure functional code allows safe use of laziness. And since laziness makes many constructs cleaner and more natural, it's a great fit!
(Disclaimer: no Haskell or F# experience)
To expand on Beni's answer: if we ignore operational aspects in terms of efficiency (and stick with a purely functional world for the moment), every terminating expression under eager evaluation is also terminating under non-strict evaluation, and the values of both (their denotations) coincide.
This is to say that lazy evaluation is strictly more expressive than eager evaluation. By allowing you to write more correct and useful expressions, it expands your "vocabulary" and ability to think functionally.
Here's one example of why:
A language can be lazy-by-default but with optional eagerness, or eager by default with optional laziness, but in fact its been shown (c.f. Okasaki for example) that there are certain purely functional data structures which can only achieve certain orders of performance if implemented in a language that provides laziness either optionally or by default.
Now when you do want to worry about efficiency, then the difference does matter, and sometimes you will want to be strict and sometimes you won't.
But worrying about strictness is a good thing, because very often the cleanest thing to do (and not only in a lazy-by-default language) is to use a thoughtful mix of lazy and eager evaluation, and thinking along these lines will be a good thing no matter which language you wind up using in the future.
Edit: Inspired by Simon's post, one additional point: many problems are most naturally thought about as traversals of infinite structures rather than basically recursive or iterative. (Although such traversals themselves will generally involve some sort of recursive call.) Even for finite structures, very often you only want to explore a small portion of a potentially large tree. Generally speaking, non-strict evaluation allows you to stop mixing up the operational issue of what the processor actually bothers to figure out with the semantic issue of the most natural way to represent the actual structure you're using.
Recently, i found myself doing Haskell-style programming in Python. I took over a monolithic function that extracted/computed/generated values and put them in a file sink, in one step.
I thought this was bad for understanding, reuse and testing. My plan was to separate value generation and value processing. In Haskell i would have generated a (lazy) list of those computed values in a pure function and would have done the post-processing in another (side-effect bearing) function.
Knowing that non-lazy lists in Python can be expensive, if they tend to get big, i thought about the next close Python solution. To me that was to use a generator for the value generation step.
The Python code got much better thanks to my lazy (pun intended) mindset.
I'd expect bad habits.
I saw one of my coworkers try to use (hand-coded) lazy evaluation in our .NET project. Unfortunately the consequence of lazy evaluation hid the bug where it would try remote invocations before the start of main executed, and thus outside the try/catch to handle the "Hey I can't connect to the internet" case.
Basically, the manner of something was hiding the fact that something really expensive was hiding behind a property read and so made it look like a good idea to do inside the type initializer.
Contextual information missing.
Laziness (or more specifically, the assumption of the availabilty of the purity and equational reasoning) is sometimes quite useful for specific problem domains, but not necessarily better in general. If you're talking about general-purpose language settings, relying on the lazy evaluation rules by default is considered harmful.
Analysis
Any languages has functional combination (or the applicable terms combination; i.e. function call expression, function-like macro invocation, FEXPRs, etc.) enforces rules on evaluation, implying the order of different parts of subcomputation therein. For convenience and the simplicity of the specification of the language, a language usually specify the rules in a flavor paired to the reduction strategy:
The strict evaluation, or the applicative-order reduction, which evaluates all subexpression first, before the subcomputation of the remaining evaluation of the hole combination.
The non-strict evaluation, or the normal-order reduction, which does not necessarily evaluate every subexpression at first.
The remaining subcomputation finally determines the result of the whole evaluation of the expression. (For program-defined constructs, this usually implies the substitution of the evaluated argument into something like a function body, and the subsequent evaluation of the result.)
Lazy evaluation, or the call-by-need strategy, is a typical concrete instance of the non-strict evaluation kind. To make it practically usable, subexpression evaluations are required to be pure (side-effect-free), so the reductions implementing the strategy can have the Church-Rosser property whatever the order of subexpression evaluation is actually adopted.
One significant merit of such design is the availability of the equational resoning: users can encode the equality of expression evaluation in the program, and optimizing implementation of the language can perform the transformation depending directly on such constructs.
However, there are many serious problems behind such design.
Equational reasoning is not important as it in the first glance in practice.
The encoding is not a separate feature. It has some specific requirements on the other features to carry the encoding. For a pure language, it is even more difficult to encode them elsewhere, so there is certain pressure to make the type system more expressive, hence more complicated typing and typechecking.
Whether the compiler uses the equational reasoning directly encoded in the program or not is an implementation detail. It is more of a taste of style to promote the importance.
Syntatic equations are not powerful enough to encode semantic conditions like cases of "unspecified behavior" in ISO C. It still needs some additional primitives to express non-determinism of such semantic equivalence classes to make optimization techniques based on such equivalence possible.
It is computationally inefficient at the very basic level by default, and not amendable by the programmer easily.
There is no systemic way to reduce the cost on equations which are known not required by the programmer.
One of the significance comes from the clash between lazily evaluated combinations and proper tail recursion over the combinations.
The unpredictable abuse of thunks to memoize the lazily evaluated expressions also makes troubles on the utilization of the machine resources (e.g. registers and the cache memory).
Purely functional languages like Haskell may declare the referential transparency is a good thingTM. However, this is faulty in certain contexts.
There are semantic gaps over the terminology itself. The purity is not the only aspect for the referential transparency; moreover, there are other kinds of such property not readily provided by the evaluation strategy.
In general, referential transparency should not be a goal about programming. Instead, it is an optional manner to implement the composable components of programs. Composability is essentially about the expected invariance on the interface of the components. There are many ways to keep the composability without the aid of any kinds of referential transparency. Whether the guarantee should be enforced by the language rules? It depends. At least, it should not depend totally on the language designers' point.
The lack of impure evaluations requires more syntax noises to encode many constructs simply expressible by mutable state cells in the traditional impure languages. The workarounds of the practical problems do make the solution more difficult and hard to reason by humans.
For example, I/O operations are side-effectful, thus not directly expressible in Haskell expressions under the usual non-strict evaluation rules, otherwise the order of effects will be non-deterministic.
To overcoming the shortcoming, some indirect conventional constructs like the IO monad to simulate the traditional imperative style are proposed. Such monadic constructs are in essential "indirect" in the sense similar to the continuation-passing style, which is considerably low-level and difficult to read. Even though monads can be "powerful" than continuations in expresiveness, it does not naturally powerful than more high-level alternatives (like algebraic effect systems) when the lazy evaluation strategy is not enforced by default.
Besides the intuition problem above, the necessity of using monadic constructs are often difficult to prove formally (if ever possible). As the result, they are very easily abused (just like the design patterns for "OOP" languages derived from Simula). The related syntax sugar, notably, the famous do-notation, is abused for a few decades before well-known by the Haskell community.
Simulating strict language constructs in languages like Haskell usually needs monadic constructs, while simulating non-strict constructs in strict languages are considerably simpler and easier to implement efficiently. For instance, there is SRFI-45.
The lazy evaluation strategy does not deal with many other non-strict constructs well.
For example, seq has to be a compiler magic in GHC. This is not easily expressible by other Haskell constructs without massive changes in the core Haskell language rules.
Although traditional strict languages also do not allow user programs to simulate the enforcement of the order easily so such sequential constructs are therefore primitive (examples: C-like ; is primitive; the derivation of Scheme's begin is relying on the primitive lambda which in turn implying an implicit evaluation order on expressions), it can be implementable reusing the applicative order rules without additional ad-hoc primitives, like the derivation of the$sequence operator in the Kernel language.
Concerns about specific questions
Lazy evaluation is not a must for the "functional paradigm", though as mentioned above, purely functional languages are likely have the lazy evaluation strategy by default. The common properties are the usability of first-class functions. Impure languages like Lisp and ML family are considered "functional", which use eager evaluation by default. Also note the popularity of "functional paradigm" came after the introducing of function-level programming. The latter is quite different, but still somewhat similar to "functional programming" on the treatment of first-classness.
As mentioned above, the way to simulate laziness in eager languages are well-known. Additionally, for pure programs, there may be no non-trivially semantic difference between call-by-need and normal order reduction. To figure out something really only work in a lazy world is actually not easy. (Do you want to implement the language?) Just go ahead.
Conclusion
Be careful to the problem domain. Lazy evaluation may work well for specific scenarios. However, making it by default is likely to be a bad idea in general, because users (whoever to use the language to program, or to derive a new dialect based on the current language) will likely have few chances to ignore all of the problems it will cause.
Well, try to think of something that would work if lazily evaluated, that wouldn't if eagerly evaluated. The most common category of these would be lazy logical operator evaluation used to hide a "side effect". I'll use C#-ish language to explain, but functional languages would have similar analogs.
Take the simple C# lambda:
(a,b) => a==0 || ++b < 20
In a lazy-evaluated language, if a==0, the expression ++b < 20 is not evaluated (because the entire expression evaluates to true either way), which means that b is not incremented. In both imperative and functional languages, this behavior (and similar behavior of the AND operator) can be used to "hide" logic containing side effects that should not be executed:
(a,b) => a==0 && save(b)
"a" in this case may be the number of validation errors. If there were validation errors, the first half fails and the second half is not evaluated. If there were no validation errors, the second half is evaluated (which would include the side effect of trying to save b) and the result (apparently true or false) is returned to be evaluated. If either side evaluates to false, the lambda returns false indicating that b was not successfully saved. If this were evaluated "eagerly", we would try to save regardless of the value of "a", which would probably be bad if a nonzero "a" indicated that we shouldn't.
Side effects in functional languages are generally considered a no-no. However, there are few non-trivial programs that do not require at least one side effect; there's generally no other way to make a functional algorithm integrate with non-functional code, or with peripherals like a data store, display, network channel, etc.
Haskell is generally referenced as an example of a purely functional language. How can this be justified given the existence of System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO ?
Edit: I thought with "purely functional" it was meant that it is impossible to introduce impure code into the functional part of the program.
The Languages We Call Haskell
unsafePerformIO is part of the Foreign Function Interface specification, not core Haskell 98 specification. It can be used to do local side effects that don't escape some scope, in order to expose a purely functional interface. That is, we use it to hide effects when the type checker can't do it for us (unlike the ST monad, which hides effects with a static guarantee).
To illustrate precisely the multiple languages that we call "Haskell", consider the image below. Each ring corresponds to a specific set of computational features, ordered by safety, and with area correlating to expressive power (i.e. the number of programs you can write if you have that feature).
The language known as Haskell 98 is specified right down in the middle, admitting total and partial functions. Agda (or Epigram), where only total functions are allowed, is even less expressive, but "more pure" and more safe. While Haskell as we use it today includes everything out to the FFI, where unsafePerformIO lives. That is, you can write anything in modern Haskell, though if you use things from the outer rings, it will be harder to establish safety and security guarantees made simple by the inner rings.
So, Haskell programs are not typically built from 100% referentially transparent code, however, it is the only moderately common language that is pure by default.
I thought with "purely functional" it was meant that it is impossible to introduce impure code...
The real answer is that unsafePerformIO is not part of Haskell, any more than say, the garbage collector or run-time system are part of Haskell. unsafePerformIO is there in the system so that the people who build the system can create a pure functional abstraction over very effectful hardware. All real languages have loopholes that make it possible for system builders to get things done in ways that are more effective than dropping down to C code or assembly code.
As to the broader picture of how side effects and I/O fit into Haskell via the IO monad, I think the easiest way to think of Haskell is that it is a pure language that describes effectful computations. When the computation described is main, the run-time system carries out those effects faithfully.
unsafePerformIO is a way to get effects in an unsafe manner; where "unsafe" means "safety must be guaranteed by the programmer"—nothing is checked by the compiler. If you are a savvy programmer and are willing to meet heavy proof obligations, you can use unsafePerformIO. But at that point you are not programming in Haskell any more; you are programming in an unsafe language that looks a lot like Haskell.
The language/implementation is purely functional. It includes a couple "escape hatches," which you don't have to use if you don't want to.
I don't think unsafePerformIO means that haskell somehow becomes impure. You can create pure (referentially transparent) functions from impure functions.
Consider the skiplist. In order for it to work well it requires access to a RNG, an impure function, but this doesn't make the data structure impure. If you add an item and then convert it to a list, the same list will be returned every time given the item you add.
For this reason I think unsafePerformIO should be thought of as promisePureIO. A function that means that functions that have side-effects and therefore would be labelled impure by the type system can become acknowledged as referentially transparent by the type system.
I understand that you have to have a slightly weaker definition of pure for this to hold though. i.e pure functions are referentially transparent and never called because of a side-effect (like print).
Unfortunately the language has to do some real world work, and this implies talking with the external environment.
The good thing is that you can (and should) limit the usage of this "out of style" code to few specific well documented portions of your program.
I have a feeling I'll be very unpopular for saying what I'm about to say, but felt I had to respond to some of the (in my opinion mis-) information presented here.
Although it's true that unsafePerformIO was officially added to the language as part of the FFI addendum, the reasons for this are largely historical rather than logical. It existed unofficially and was widely used long before Haskell ever had an FFI. It was never officially part of the main Haskell standard because, as you have observed, it was just too much of an embarrassment. I guess the hope was that it would just go away at some point in the future, somehow. Well that hasn't happened, nor will it in my opinion.
The development of FFI addendum provided a convenient pretext for unsafePerformIO to get snuck in to the official language standard as it probably doesn't seem too bad here, when compared to adding the capability to call foreign (I.E. C) code (where all bets are off regarding statically ensuring purity and type safety anyway). It was also jolly convenient to put it here for what are essentially political reasons. It fostered the myth that Haskell would be pure, if only it wasn't for all that dirty "badly designed" C, or "badly designed" operating systems, or "badly designed" hardware or .. whatever.. It's certainly true that unsafePerformIO is regularly used with FFI related code, but the reasons for this are often more to do with bad design of the FFI and indeed of Haskell itself, not bad design of whatever foreign thing Haskell is trying interface too.
So as Norman Ramsey says, the official position came to be that it was OK to use unsafePerformIO provided certain proof obligations were satisfied by whoever used it (primarily that doing this doesn't invalidate important compiler transformations like inlining and common sub-expression elimination). So far so good, or so one might think. The real kicker is that these proof obligations cannot be satisfied by what is probably the single most common use case for unsafePerformIO, which by my estimate accounts for well over 50% of all the unsafePerformIOs out there in the wild. I'm talking about the appalling idiom known as the "unsafePerformIO hack" which is provably (in fact obviously) completely unsafe (in the presence of inlining and cse) .
I don't really have the time, space or inclination to go into what the "unsafePerformIO hack" is or why it's needed in real IO libraries, but the bottom line is that folk who work on Haskells IO infrastructure are usually "stuck between a rock and a hard place". They can either provide an inherently safe API which has no safe implementation (in Haskell), or they can provide an inherently unsafe API which can be safely implemented, but what they can rarely do is provide safety in both API design and implementation. Judging by the depressing regularity with which the "unsafePerformIO hack" appears in real world code (including the Haskell standard libraries), it seems most choose the former option as the lesser of the two evils, and just hope that the compiler won't muck things up with inlining, cse or any other transformation.
I do wish all this was not so. Unfortunately, it is.
Safe Haskell, a recent extension of GHC, gives a new answer to this question. unsafePerformIO is a part of GHC Haskell, but not a part of the safe dialect.
unsafePerformIO should be used only to build referentially transparent functions; for example, memoization. In these cases, the author of a package marks it as "trustworthy". A safe module can import only safe and trustworthy modules; it cannot import unsafe modules.
For more information: GHC manual, Safe Haskell paper
Haskell is generally referenced as an example of a purely functional language. How can this be justified given the existence of System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO ?
Edit: I thought with "purely functional" it was meant that it is impossible to introduce impure code into the functional part of the program.
The IO monad is actually defined in Haskell, and you can in fact see its definition here. This monad does not exist to deal with impurities but rather to handle side effects. In any case, you could actually pattern match your way out of the IO monad, so the existence of unsafePerformIO shouldn't really be troubling to you.
Which techniques or paradigms normally associated with functional languages can productively be used in imperative languages as well?
e.g.:
Recursion can be problematic in languages without tail-call optimization, limiting its use to a narrow set of cases, so that's of limited usefulness
Map and filter have found their way into non-functional languages, even though they have a functional sort of feel to them
I happen to really like not having to worry about state in functional languages. If I were particularly stubborn I might write C programs without modifying variables, only encapsulating my state in variables passed to functions and in values returned from functions.
Even though functions aren't first class values, I can wrap one in an object in Java say, and pass that into another method. Like Functional programming, just less fun.
So, for veterans of functional programming, when you program in imperative languages, what ideas from FP have you applied successfully?
Pretty nearly all of them?
If you understand functional languages, you can write imperative programs that are "informed" by a functional style. That will lead you away from side effects, and toward programs in which reading the program text at any particular point is sufficient to let you really know what the meaning of the program is at that point.
Back at the Dawn of Time we used to worry about "coupling" and "cohesion". Learning an FP will lead you to write systems with optimal (minimal) coupling, and high cohesion.
Here are things that get in the way of doing FP in a non-FP language:
If the language doesn't support lambda/closures, and doesn't have any syntactic sugar to easily mostly hack it, you are dead in the water. You don't call map/filter without closures.
If the language is statically-typed and doesn't support generics, you are dead in the water. All the good FP stuff uses genericity.
If the language doesn't support tail-recursion, you are hindered. You can write implementations of e.g. 'map' iteratively; also often your data may not be too large and recursion will be ok.
If the language does not support algebraic data types and pattern-matching, you will be mildly hindered. It's just annoying not to have them once you've tasted them.
If the language cannot express type classes, well, oh well... you'll get by, but darn if that's not just the awesomest feature ever, but Haskell is the only remotely popular language with good support.
Not having first-class functions really puts a damper on writing functional programs, but there are a few things that you can do that don't require them. The first is to eschew mutable state - try to have most or all of your classes return new objects that represent the modified state instead of making the change internally. As an example, if you were writing a linked list with an add operation, you would want to return the new linked list from add as opposed to modifying the object.
While this may make your programs less efficient (due to the increased number of objects being created and destroyed) you will gain the ability to more easily debug the program because the state and operation of the objects becomes more predictable, not to mention the ability to nest function calls more deeply because they have state inputs and outputs.
I've successfully used higher-order functions a lot, especially the kind that are passed in rather than the kind that are returned. The kind that are returned can be a bit tedious but can be simulated.
All sorts of applicative data structures and recursive functions work well in imperative languages.
The things I miss the most:
Almost no imperative languages guarantee to optimize every tail call.
I know of no imperative language that supports case analysis by pattern matching.