Related
In the context of programming language discussion/comparison, what does the term "power" mean?
Does it have a well defined meaning? Even a poorly defined meaning?
Say if someone says "language X is more powerful than language Y" or asks the same as a question, what do they mean - or what information are they trying to find out?
It does not have a well-defined meaning. In these types of discussions, "language X is more powerful than language Y" usually means little more than "I like language X more than language Y." On the other end of the spectrum, you'll also usually have someone chime in about how any Turing-complete language can accomplish the same tasks as any other Turing-complete language, so that neither is strictly more powerful than the other.
I think a good meaning for it is expressivity. When a language is highly expressive, it means less code is required to express concepts. To me, this doesn't just mean that you have to write less code to accomplish the same tasks, but also that the code is easily readable by humans. Of course, generally (to a point), having fewer lines of code to read makes the task of reading and understanding easier for humans.
Having a "powerful" standard library comes into play here along the same lines. If a language comes equipped with thorough, complete libraries, then idiomatic code in that language will be able to benefit from the existing library code and not have to repeat or reinvent common functionality in application code. The end result is, again, having to write and read less code to accomplish the same tasks.
I keep saying "generally" and "to a point", because once a language gets too terse, it gets more difficult for humans to decipher. I suppose at this extreme, a language may still be considered "more powerful" (or even "too powerful"). So I guess I'm saying my personal interpretation of "powerful" includes some aspects of "useful" and "readable" in it as well.
C is powerful, because it is low level and gives you access to hardware. Python is powerful because you can prototype quickly. Lisp is powerful because its REPL gives you fantastic debugging opportunities. SQL is powerful because you say what you want and the DMBS will figure out the best way to do it for you. Haskell is powerful because each function can be tested in isolation. C++ is powerful because it has ten times the number of syntactic constructs that any one person ever needs or uses. APL is powerful since it can squeeze a ten-screen program into ten characters. Hell, COBOL is powerful because... why else would all the banks be using it? :)
"Powerful" has no real technical meaning, but lots of people have made proposals.
A couple of the more interesting ones:
Paul Graham wants to call a language "more powerful" if you can write the same programs in fewer lines of code (or some other sane, sensible measure of program size).
Matthias Felleisen has written a very serious theoretical study called On the Expressive Power of Programming Language.
As someone who knows and uses many programming languages, I believe that there are real differences between languages, and that "power" can be a convenient shorthand to describe ways in which one language might be better than another. Nevertheless, whenever I hear a discussion or claim that one language is more powerful than another, I tend to keep one hand firmly on my wallet.
The only meaningful way to describe "power" in a programming language is "can do what I require with the least amount of resources" where "resources" is defined as "whatever costs I'd rather not pay" and could, thus, be development time, CPU time, memory space, money, etc.
So basically the definition of "power" is purely subjective and rendered meaningless in any objective discussion.
Powerful means "high in power". "Power" is something that increases your ability to do things. "Things" vary in shape, size and other things. Loosely speaking therefore, "powerful" when applied to a programming language means that it helps you to do perform your tasks quickly and efficiently.
This makes "powerful" somewhat well defined but not constant across domains. A language powerful in one domain might be crippling in another eg. C is very powerful if you want to do systems level programming since it gives you direct access to the machine and hardware and structures that let you code much faster than you would in assembly. C compilers also produce tight code that runs fast. However, once you move to web applications, C can become very "unpowerful" and crippling since it's so much effort to get something up and running and you have to worry about a lot of extraneous details like memory etc.
Sometimes, languages are "powerful" in multiple domains. This gives them a general "powerful" tag (or badge since were are on SO here). PG's claim is that with LISP, this is the case. That might be true or might not be.
At the end of the day, "powerful" is a loaded word so you should evaluate who is saying it, why he's saying it and what it means to to your work.
There are really only two meanings people are worried about:
"Powerful" in the sense of "takes less resources (time, money, programmers, LOC, etc.) to achieve the same/better result", and "powerful" in the sense of "is capable of doing a wide range of tasks".
Some languages are extrememly resource-effective for a small range of tasks. Others are not so resource-effective but can be applied to a wide range of tasks (e.g. C, which is often used in OS development, creation of compilers and runtime libraries, and work with microcontrollers).
Which of these two meanings someone has in mind when they use the term "powerful" depends on the context (and even then is not always clear). Indeed often it is a bit of both.
Typically there are two distinct meanings:
Expressive, meaning the code tends to be very short and understandable
Low level, meaning you have very fine-grained control over the hardware.
For the most languages, these two definitions are at opposite ends of the spectrum: Python is very expressive but not very low level; C is very low level but not very expressive. Depending on which definition you pick, either language is powerful or not powerful.
nothing absolutely nothing.
To high level programmers it might mean alot of available datatypes built in. Or maybe abstractions to easily create or follow Design Patterns.
Paul Graham is a very high level guy here is what he has to say:
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html
Java guys might tell you something about portability, the power to reach every platform.
C/UNIX programmers may tell you that its speed and efficiency, complete control over every inch of memory.
VHDL/Verilog programmers will tell you its complete control over every clock and gate so as to not waste any electricity or time.
But in my opinion a "powerful language" supports all of the features for you to complete your task. Documentation may be important, or perhaps it is portability, or the ability to do graphics. It could be anything, writing a gui from Assembly is just stupid, so is trying to design an embedded processor in flash.
Choosing a language that suits your needs perfectly will always feel like power.
I view the term as marketing fluff, no one well-defined meaning.
If you consider, say, Assembler, C, and C++. On occasions one drops from C++ "down" to C for particualr needs, and in turn from C down to assembler. So that make assembler the most powerful because it's the only language that can do everything. Or, to argue the other way, a single line of C++ code can replace several of C (hiding polymorphic dispatch via function pointers for example) and a single line of C replaces many of assembler. So C++ is more powerful because one line does "more".
I think the term had some currency when products such as early databases and spreadsheets had in-built languages, some quite restricted. So vendors would tout their language as being "powerful" because it was less restricted.
It can have several meanings. In the very basic sense there's power as far as what is computable. In that sense the most powerful languages are Turing Complete which includes pretty much every general purpose programming language (as opposed to most markup languages and domain specific languages which are often not Turing complete).
In a more pragmatic sense it often refers to how concisely (and readably) you can do certain things. Basically how easy is it to do certain tasks in one language compared to another.
What language is more powerful (besides being somewhat subjective) depends heavily on what you're trying to do. If your requirements are to get something running on a small device with 64k of memory you're likely not going to be using Java. Most likely the right language would be C or C++ (or if you're really hard core assembly). If you need a very simple CRUD app done in 1 day, maybe something like Ruby On Rails would be the way to go (I know Rails is a framework and Ruby is the language, but these days what libraries and frameworks are available factor greatly into picking a language)
I think that, perhaps coincidentally, the physics definition of power is relevant here: "The rate at which work is performed."
Of course, a toaster does not perform very quickly the work of putting out fires. Similarly, the power of a programming language is not universal, but specific to the domain or task to which it is being applied. C is a powerful language for writing device drivers or implementations of higher-level languages; Python is a powerful language for writing general-purpose applications; XPath is a powerful language for writing queries on structured data sets.
So given a problem domain, the power of a language can be said to be the rate at which a competent programmer is able to use it to solve problems in that domain.
A precise answer can be tried to reach, by not assuming that the elements that define "powerful" (in the context of languages) come from so many dimensions.
See how many could be, and a lot will be missing:
runtime speed
code size
expressiveness
supported paradigms
development / debugging time
domain specialization
standard libs
codebase
toolchain ecosystem
portability
community
support / documentation
popularity
(add more here)
These and more parameters draw together X picture of how "programming in some language" would be like at X level. That will be only the definition, though, the only real knowledge comes with the actual practice of using the language, but i digress.
The question comes down to which parameter will represent the intrinsic quality of a language. If you refer to a language in itself, its ultimate, intrinsic purpose is "express things", and thus the most representative parameter is rightfully expressiveness, and is also one that resonates frequently when someone talks about how powerful a language is.
At the moment you try to widen the question/answer to cover more than the expressiveness of the language "as a language, as a tongue", you are more talking about different kinds of "environment", social environment, development environment, commercial environment, etc.
Depending of the complexity of the environment to be defined you'll have to mix more parameters that come from multiple, vast, overlapping and sometimes contradictory dimensions, and eventually the point of getting the definition will be lost or the question will have to be narrowed.
This approximation still won't answer "what is an expressive language", but, again, a common understanding are the definitions that Vineet well points out in its answer, and Forest remarks in the comments. I agree, for me "expression" is "conveying meaning".
I remember many instructors in college calling whatever language they were teaching "powerful".
Leads me to think:
Powerful = a relative term comparing the latest way to code something vs. the original or previous way.
I find it useless to use the word "powerful" in regards to discussing anything software related. Every time my professor in college would introduce a new concept such as polymorphism he would say "so this is a really powerful feature". After a while I got annoyed. If everything is powerful then nothing is. It's all the same. You can write code to do anything. Does is really matter how much code is required to do it? You can say it's short or efficient but powerful is just useless. Nuclear energy is powerful. Code is words.
I think that power would normally refer to how quickly it can process data, for example I found that in python as soon as a list exceeds a length of approx. 2000 it becomes unbearably slow whereas in C++ a list can easily contain 20,000 entries without doing so.
Closed. This question is off-topic. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it's on-topic for Stack Overflow.
Closed 10 years ago.
Improve this question
What is the real benefit of creating a new programming language? It is highly unlikely that you are going to actually use it.
In short, how will the process of creating a new language make you a better programmer?
You will understand the decisions behind language design and garner a better overall understanding of the compromises made between readability, performance, and reliability.
Your familiarity with concepts such as recursion, closures, garbage collection, reference management, typing, data structures and how these things actually work will increase. Most programmers will utilize resources and language features better.
Similar to the way we learn new ways to code solutions when we use other languages, when we write our own languages, we explore new ways to create solutions. See Metaprogramming. Contrary to the what the question suggests, Domain Specific Languages are used in many environments.
If you're writing a compiler, you'll learn more about how computers work than you ever did before. (Depending on your goal, perhaps more than you intended to learn)
When I wrote my own sort routines in school, even re-implementations of good ones, it really drove home some of the weaknesses of some of the algorithms.
In short, there's an order of magnitude of difference in a programmer who knows how to use tools, and a programmer who knows how to make tools.
I can speak from experience here ...
Fun, Domain specific problem solving, Complexity in context
I love creating new languages for fun, and for tackling domain specific problems. A very simple example might be Wikipedia markup or something as complex as Erlang which specializes in concurrent processing.
Many general purpose languages are similar, because they are general purpose. Sometimes you need a more accurate abstraction of the mechanics of the problem you are solving. Another example would be the M4 macro language.
Remember a language is not magic, it is just a collection of defined grammatical structures with implied semantics. SQL is a good example of a language for a purpose, with that purpose defined in it's syntax and semantics.
Learning how languages work, what makes a language parsable, what makes semantics sensible and the implementation of this, I think can make you a better programmer.
compilers embody alot of theory that underpins computer science:
Translation, abstraction, interpretation, data structures, state .... the list goes on. Learning these things will make you understand the implications of your program and what goes on under the hood. You can of course learn things independently but compilers are a great context to learn complex topics such as DFA/NDFA automata, stack-based parsers, abstract syntax trees ....
compilers are beautiful machines I think :)
Multiple reasons:
bragging rights
economic incentives
extreme boredom
dissatisfaction with the hundreds of existing languages
untreated insanity
desire to implement language that facilitates new design concepts (like languages that make design patterns more straightforward to incorporate)
other reasons, perhaps
I think Jeff Attwood answers this well in this Coding Horror post -- though he's talking about a more general issue (why create any new library, framework, etc, when other artifacts in the same design space already exist), I suspect that exactly said broader viewpoint gives him a different and interesting perspective.
I will add that if you write a semantics, so that your language is an actual language and not merely what happens to be accepted by some particular implementation, you will learn an enormous amount about how to describe computational behaviors precisely:
You will learn what kinds of behaviors are and are not easy to describe—and prove correct.
You will learn how to trade off different kinds of formalisms for describing different kinds of features.
You will ultimately be a better programmer because the formalism and proof techniques you will learn will apply to all kinds of problems: locking techniques, safety properties in kernels, lock-free data structures, network protocols, and information security, to name just a few. All these areas are amenable to the same kind of formal treatment that is given to a programming language.
To pick just one example, if you give your language a static type system and you then prove that a well-type program is guaranteed to be memory-safe, you will learn just as much (on a different dimension) as you will by writing an interpreter or compiler.
EDIT: If you want to learn this stuff I think the easiest starting point is Benjamin Pierce's series of two books on Types and Programming Languages. There is also a graduate textbook by Glynn Winskel which is a little harder but more oriented toward semantics and proof techniques.
Creating Domain Specific Languages is very valuable. Instead of thinking only about general purpose languages, consider creating so-called "little languages" that clearly express abstractions in your project.
For example, in a recent project I decided to use a Command Pattern to drive a Service Layer. I found some repetition in my command code, so I wrote a little compiler that accepts a simple language that expresses commands and emits command implementations in the "underlying" language.
For the same reason that taking a Compiler Construction course at university will benefit you even if you never write a single compiler in your whole life. It's a look under the hood, if you may.
In addition to what altCognito said, which is a theoretical/academic perspective, some highly specialized languages are created to solve specific problems efficiently when existing "general-purpose" languages are either extremely inefficient for your task or there just isn't an easy-to-use existing alternative.
Granted, that such cases tend to be rare and if your first instinct on encountering a problem is "I need a new language for this.", then it is most likely you're missing something. There needs to be a fairly substantial gap in "available" tech and and your needs to warrant such an undertaking.
I think there are really two conceptually different answers to this. First, you gain an understanding of how compilers transform your code into executable code. This can help you make better decisions about how to structure your code to optimize (or allow it to be optimized) better. If, for instance, you knew that a certain construct would prohibit the compiler from inlining a code block or unrolling a loop, then you could avoid that if performance became a real concern.
Second, all current languages were invented (or derived) at some point in history. For each one of these, the likelihood that it would actually be used was potentially small, yet here they are. They all found their reason for being in the fact that someone wanted to do something that wasn't possible or easy to do in an existing language and decided to do something about it. Laziness (or the desire to let the computer do the work for you) is the mother of invention.
Just for fun... and then you'll realize that you cannot make anything better than all the languages that you thought they sucked xD (so you stop complaining about them).
how will the process of creating a new language make you a better programmer?
You're right, you may or may not use the language, but at the least the experience you will gain from doing it will benefit you to understand the implementation of programming languages and of certain things that you will be able to apply to future computation problems that you run into.
Writing a compiler or interpreter requires a very firm understanding in computer science theory. And if you're compiling to machine code instead of to another language, it requires a firm understanding in hardware design as well.
In addition to that, knowing how to design a compiler means you will have a better understanding of languages in general, and the languages you work with specifically. You will have a better appreciation for syntax and trade-offs the language designers took when they wrote their specification.
It's not that writing compilers makes you a better programmer. It's the deep understanding of language theory and compiler design that makes you better.
Mostly you do this for fun or to broaden your comprehension of a subject.
I disagree that creating new language influences performance - performance of what? IMHO execution speed should not depend on the language constructs but what the language is translated to - which is something different: like creating a syntax for a language and writting a compiler/virtual machine for it.
Because a talking frog is pretty neat.
I want a managed language that permits tinkering with its internals as standard practice. Kind of like Ruby's duck punching on a wider scale.
I should, as the client of a library, be able to swap out library functions that don't do what I want.
That's what drives me crazy with .NET. There are bugs in the framework Microsoft will not fix and thanks to GAC signing I cannot. And even if it were not for GAC signing, hotpatching a global library is a bad idea (might break some other application).
I for one don't care about how compilers work, don't care about learning new languages, and don't care about using scripting languages like perl and javascript. I'm much more interested in the ways big programs are constructed (or should be constructed). There are still no good solutions for making LARGE software as easy to use as prototyped code. Programming languages are not helping with that. They solve trivial problems like sorting and memory deallocation, and leave you struggling alone with problems that really matter (that keep you or your firm from losing money).
So i have design a programming languages and got far enough that i wrote example code and started writing BNF. I want to know is there a checklist of things i may want to do before writing the rest of my BNF? what should i do afterward? i am afraid implementation will take a long time (its as complex as and maybe more then C++). What are things i should do or things i should consider?
Get peer review on what you've done so far. Language design is hard - it's likely that an extra pair of eyes (or several) would help to find some areas where you could improve it before you go too far down the implementation side. (In particular, if it's more complex than C++ are you sure that's necessary?)
If it is more complex than C++, it probably needs redesign. A lott of C++'s complexity comes from the need to provide C compatibility and so to graft features ion top of the less than wonderful C declaration syntax. If you don't need to support an exsiting language, it's hard to see how such complexity can be justified.
Having designed and implemented a few languages myself, I recommend an invremental approach:
design small subset
implement it
use it
With the lessons learned, design a somewhat larger subset and repeat.
Recently I'm pondering the characteristics of a good programming language. It's true that "There are a thousand Hamlets in a thousand people's eyes", like simplification, explicitness, readability and more.
But I'm wondering a good programming language should be consistent, which means everyone will write the same(at least very similar) codes to achieve the same functionality, which means everyone will read, understand, maintain others' codes easily and effectively. Not as flexible as everyone will write different codes in readability and quality for one functionality, which mostly depends on programmer's experience and skill.
Till now, I didn't find some languages which matches my definition of consistency, but I'm still looking for. Anyone knows any?
I'm not sure whether you agree with me or not? Please point out if anything wrong with my point. And leave your argument no matter you agree with me or not. Just leave your points and arguments.
Regards.
Both, or either. Take the difference between Perl and Python. In Perl, tell someone to read data from a file and display it to stdout and you can get roughly 85,000 different permutations. In Python, you're likely to have 5-10. However, both are widely used, extremely powerful, highly efficient and capable of nearly any task.
Language choice comes down to personal preference and a bit of what you want to do. OO paradigms will lead to drastically different program structures from program to program, imperative programming paradigms will lead to very similar program structures from programmer to programmer, functional programming paradigms will be somewhere in between.
As an aside, I personally prefer the language to be flexible enough to let me design the application in the manner I see fit as there are times when performance of certain components are an absolute necessity while others they don't matter at all. A strict "One True Way" can place limits on what you do, but "There's More Than One Way To Do It" requires you to know which is the highest performance and make the tradeoff for readability vs. compactness vs. performance (not always mutually exclusive).
There's this great cartoon with a tree swing in every panel. One panel has a regular swing and says "what the customer needed". The next panel shows two seats - one on top of the other and says "what the customer asked for". Next is a swing with three stacked seats that says "what the programmer's built". Everyone has a mental picture of their expectations. And everyone's picture is different.
You can't achieve consistency in that kind of environment. If we can't achieve consistency, can we improve upon readability? Because the end goal is having code that other programmers can maintain.
I like literate programming. It arranges code in a human context - what makes sense for a person to read. A literate style more closely follows your mental model.
Even when I can't use the tools, that style has vastly improved the clarity and effectiveness of comments.
The Zen of Python contains:
There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it.
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.