I've just started learning J, which is very interesting, but I was wondering what kind of language it is exactly, in relation to common paradigms and classifications. For example, you could say that F# is a strongly typed, mainly functional (it supports OO and procedural programming, but it's considered to be "functional") language which belongs to the ML family. For J, however, I couldn't find much on how to classify it "conventionally", or find anything on Stackoverflow confirming that it's a functional programming language. Wikipedia says that it "is a very terse array programming language", "supports function-level programming", and "is not a Von Neumann programming language", none of which are more helpful.
I have a couple of questions:
What main paradigm (procedural, OO, functional, logical) do J/K/APL fall under? If their paradigm is only "array programming", what paradigm does that fall under or is most similar to?
What well-known programming languages are J/K/APL most similar to? For example, I'd guess that they're like Lisp, since they operate on arrays (lists) and have minimal, no comma syntax.
I'm just trying to categorize these languages in my head according to what I already know. Thank you.
J is related to the kind of functional programming (sometimes known as function-level programming, as opposed to value-level) advocated by John Backus, who is probably better known as the inventor of Fortran but spent the latter part of his career trying to move programming away from the style used by Fortran.
In his Turing Award Lecture entitled "Can Programming be Liberated from the von Neumann Style?" Backus presented an overview of his ideas, which he experimented with in his FP and FL languages. Those were inspired largely by Ken Iverson's APL, and Iverson in turn borrowed from Backus' languages when he developed J.
The key idea behind these, which was expanded and developed as a paradigm as the language family grew, was the formation of an algebra of programming. Using these algebraic tools, a programmer could derive or calculate a correct program to solve a problem by combining standard higher-order functions according to well-known mathematical rules. From the abstract of the lecture above:
Associated with the functional style of programming is an algebra of
programs whose variables range over programs and whose operations are
combining forms. This algebra can be used to transform programs and to
solve equations whose "unknowns" are programs in much the same way one
transforms equations in high school algebra. These transformations are
given by algebraic laws and are carried out in the same language in
which programs are written. Combining forms are chosen not only for
their programming power but also for the power of their associated
algebraic laws. General theorems of the algebra give the detailed
behavior and termination conditions for large classes of programs.
Although there doesn't seem to be a lot of recent research that uses the notation of this family of languages, the key ideas have seen somewhat recent development in other functional languages. Richard Bird and Lambert Meertens worked on a related formalism for algebraic manipulation and derivation of programs and the data they operate on; this is known as the Bird-Meertens Formalism or, informally, Squiggol.
Bird and Philip Wadler later wrote a text, "Introduction to Functional Programming", which introduced students to the more well-known "value-level" functional programming based on the lambda calculus. It originally used the Miranda programming language, a forerunner to Haskell, but in its 2nd edition was translated to use Haskell. I mention this because Erik Meijer, Maarten Fokkinga, and Ross Paterson used the example functions in the text as the motivating examples in their well-known paper "Functional Programming with Bananas, Lenses, Envelopes, and Barbed Wire", where they extend the Bird-Meertens Formalism, give it a basis in Category Theory, and show how the solution to each of the examples can be calculated based on the laws of the formalism and the recursion schemes captured by its higher-order functions.
These ideas took root in Haskell, and there you can find a style of programming known as "point-free" that bears a strong resemblance to FP programming. It eschews named variables and creates a new function purely by composition of other functions. Most of the language is not optimized for this use, so many functions are awkward to create in point-free style using only the standard libraries, but alternate libraries that provide more Squiggol-style combinator functions are available.
The algebraic style of constructing programs, thanks to its mathematical nature, is amenable to high-level analysis and transformation by sophisticated compilers. This has led to developments in "Fusion" or "Deforestation" optimizations in functional language compilers that allow algorithms expressed in this style to be reduced to highly efficient machine code loops without all the garbage data and redundant loops that a more naive translation would require. Earlier this year, a framework for generalized stream fusion was presented that showed very practical results from this style of programming.
Hopefully this background gives you a better idea of what the Wikipedia article was talking about and how the underlying paradigm works.
While other tags could also apply (as with other languages), J is certainly a functional language. It has most major attributes attributed to functional languages, such as functions being 'first class citizens,' currying, higher order functions, etc. Furthermore, if it means anything to you, I have read articles where the language creators themselves described the language as 'functional.'
You could also say that it is an array programming language, as all functions operate on arrays vs. single elements.
I think the short answer you are looking for is that J is a functional array programming language. You could also throw other descriptors out there, such as non-statically typed, etc.
As to your numbered questions:
Functional and array programming.
As far as array programming goes, they are not similar to any other well-known language; rather they are in their own category of 'array programming languages.' As far as functional aspects go, they'd be in the functional category.
It'a a well-known fact that UML does not Turing complete (in contrast to usual programming languages). But it seems to me UML is even more flexible than traditional languages. I can't imagine a problem you can describe by means of such language as C++ (f.e) but at the same time can't describe by means of UML. Quite the contrary it's much more easier for me to fancy a construction existing in UML but unreliazable in C++ (Java, Delphi, VB and so on...)
Could you help me to understand this moment? I really can't catch it.
I´d say that UML IS a turing complete language since the addition of the Action Semantics package (this happened in UML 1.5 version).
Now UML includes an imperative action language (not to be confused with OCL) that allows a precise definition of the behaviour of class methods. This imperative action language includes the typical set of assignments, if conditions, iterators,... you´d expect from any programming language.
This action language is one of the popular components of Executable UML approaches but it´s now part of the UML standard itself
Interesting question. A couple of points come to mind, although there's probably a whole more to it. Apologies it's quite long.
What can you describe with e.g. C++ that you can't describe with UML?
First, you have to define what you mean by "UML". Generally, people tend to mean the 'core' elements - those on Class Diagrams, State Diagrams, Activity Diagrams etc. - plus OCL (the constraint language).
Given those elements you can't specify imperative algorithms. Specifically, anything that requires assignment. You can however get very close: the steps and decision logic can be expressed using e.g. Activity Diagrams, and the function of each step defined as pre- and post-conditions in OCL. However, you never quite get to fully specifying the behaviour. Take an example of an atomic step whose purpose is to increment the value of an integer. The input is an integer - say X. The output is described by the post-condition X == X#pre+1. However, there's nothing in UML to actually implement the step.
Now it's entirely conceivable to extend usage of UML to address above. The UML Action Semantics were developed precisely to enable specification of actions. Doing so makes the language computationally complete. The problems are merely practical:
There's no universally agreed and adopted syntax for the semantics;
There are very few implementations
What can you describe with UML that can't be implemented in e.g. C++?
In essence nothing. However there are two practical limitations:
UML "specifications" are usually imprecise, ambiguous and/or incomplete. Activity Diagrams, for example, often leave paths dangling. Could it be represented directly in C++? Yes. Would it compile? No.
Some of the mappings for UML constructs to imperative, stack based languages are non-trivial. State Models are an example: while there are well-known patterns, the mapping is quite complex. This is especially true for hierarchical and/or concurrent behaviour. In an activity Diagram, it's easy to express that two activities happen in parallel and then synchronise before moving to the next step. That can of course be done in C++ but requires the use of e.g. threading libraries.
It can however be done. In fact, it's what the Executable UML tools do: Model Compilers take an executable UML model and translate it into 100% functioning imperative code.
hth.
As the name implies UML is a modelling language. It can sometimes be applied as a methodology for designing software.
Once upon a time they were dreaming up ways of automatic code generation, they were called CASE tools. They failed to get the code generators to work effectively, although they did remove a lot of boiler plate code from the language. This augmentation became the key to UML as it provided a way to augment the experience of designing and programming software.
I don't know if UML is "Turing Complete", I hope it is, wouldn't it be great to come up with solutions by describing the problem to the computer in pictorial format and letting the computer do all that hard nasty programming for you.
UML is the meta language to the doing in the code. It describes artefacts, how they relate/interact and what they do.
UML is being added to, new design artefacts are being added year by year, and if it is not already Turing Complete I don't see why it couldn't be.
However I think somewhere along the line I read something about languages being "Turing Equivalent" if they could both express and solve the same solution.
Since UML is the design language and code is the implementation language based on the UML design I would say that UML and code (c#, java, etc) are Turing Equivalent. If they are agreed to be Turing Equivalent then UML must be Turing Complete.
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.