Related
I am working on a new language, targeted for web development, embeding into applications, distributed applications, high-reliability software (but this is for distant future).
Also, it's target to reduce development expenses in long term - more time to write safer code and less support later. And finally, it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
In short, the key syntax/language features are:
Open source, non-restrictive licensing. Surely crossplatform.
Tastes like C++ but simpler, Pythonic syntax with strict & static type checking. Easier to learn, no multiple inheritance and other things which nobody know anyway :-)
LLVM bytecode/compilation backend gives near-C speed.
Is has both garbage collection & explicit object destruction.
Real OS threads, native support of multicore computers. Multithreading is part of language, not a library.
Types have the same width on any platform. int(32), long(64) e.t.c
Built in post and preconditions, asserts, tiny unit tests. You write a method - you can write all these things in 1 place, so you have related things in one place. If you worry that your class sourcecode will be bloated with this - it's IDEs work to hide what you don't need now.
Java-like exception handling (i.e. you have to handle all exceptions)
I guess I'll leave web & cluster features for now...
What you think? Are there any existing similar languages which I missed?
To summarize: You language has no real selling points. It just does what a dozen other languages already did, with syntax and semantics just slightly off, depending on where the programmer comes from. This may be a good thing, as it makes the language easier to adapt, but you also have to convince people to trouble to switch. All this stuff has to be built and debugged and documented again, tools have to be programmed, people have to learn it and convince their pointy-haired bosses to use it, etc. "So it's language X with a few features from Y and nicer syntax? But it won't make my application's code 15% shorter and cleaner, it won't free me from boilerplate X, etc - and it won't work with my IDE." The last one is important. Tools matter. If there are no good tools for a language, few people will shy away, rightfully so.
And finally, it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
Sounds like a downside! How does the language "enforce one X"? How do you convince programmers this coding style is the one true style? Why shouldn't somebody go and replace the dog slow, hardly maintained, severly limited IDE you "enforce" with something better? How could one web framework possibly fit all applications? Programmers rarely like to be forced into X, and they are sometimes right.
Also, you language will have to talk to others. So you have ready-made standard solutions for multithreading and web development in mind? Maybe you should start with a FFI instead. Python can use extensions written in C or C++, use dynamic libraries through ctypes, and with Cython it's amazingly simple to wrap any given C library with a Python interface. Do you have any idea how many important libraries are written in C? Unless your language can use these, people can hardly get (real-world) stuff done with it. Just think of GUI. Most mayor GUI toolkits are C or C++. And Java has hundreds of libraries (the other JVM languages profit much from Java interop) for many many purposes.
Finally, on performance: LLVM can give you native code generation, which is a huge plus (performance-wise, but also because the result is standalone), but the LLVM optimizers are limited, too. Don't expect it to beat C. Especially not hand-tuned C compiled via icc on Intel CPUs ;)
"Are there any existing similar
languages which I missed?"
D? Compared to your features:
The compiler has a dual license - GPL and Artistic
See example code here.
LDC targets LLVM. Support for D version 2 is under development.
Built-in garbage collection or explicit memory management.
core.thread
Types
Unit tests / Pre and Post Contracts
try/catch/finally exception handling plus scope guarantees
Responding to a few of your points individually (I've omitted what I consider either unimportant or good):
targeted for web development
Most people use php. Not because it's the best language available, that's for sure.
embeding into applications
Lua.
distributed applications, high-reliability software (but this is for distant future).
Have you carefully studied Erlang, both its design and its reference implementation?
it enforces many things that real teams have to enforce - like one crossplatform IDE, one codestyle, one web framework.
If your language becomes successful, people will make other IDEs, other code styles, other web frameworks.
Multithreading is part of language, not a library.
Really good languages for multithreading forbid side effects inside threads. Yes, in practice that pretty much means Erlang only.
Types have the same width on any platform. int(32), long(64) e.t.c
Sigh... There's only one reasonable width for integers outside of machine-level languages like C: infinite.
Designing your own language will undoubtedly teach you someting. But designing a good language is like designing a good cryptosystem: lots of amateurs try, but it takes an expert to do it well.
I suggest you read some of Norman Ramsey's answers here on programming language design, starting with this thread.
Given your interest in distributed applications, knowing Erlang is a must. As for sequential programming, the minimum is one imperative language and one functional language (ideally both Lisp/Scheme and Haskell, but F# is a good start). I also recommend knowing at least one high-level language that doesn't have objects, just so you understand that not having objects can often make the programmer's life easier (because objects are complex).
As for what could drive other people to learn your language... Good tools/libraries/frameworks can't hurt (FORTRAN, php), and a big company setting the example can't hurt (Java, C#). Good design doesn't seem to be much of a factor (a ha-ha-only-serious joke has it that what makes a language successful is using {braces} to delimit blocks: C, C++, Java, C#, php)...
What you've given us is a list of features, with no coherent philosophy, or explanation as to how they will work together. None of the features are unique. At best, you're offering incremental improvements over what's already there. I'd expect there's already languages kicking around with what you've said, it's just that they're still fairly obscure, because they didn't make it.
Languages have inertia. People have to learn new languages, and sometimes new tools. They need incentive to do so, and 20% improvement in a few features doesn't cut it.
What you need, at a minimum, is a killer app and a form of elevator pitch. (The "elevator pitch" is what you tell the higher-ups about your project when you're in the elevator with them, in current US business parlance.) You need to have your language be obviously worth learning for some purpose, and you need to be able to tell people why it's worth learning before they think "just another language by somebody who wanted to write a language" and go away.
You need to form a language community. That community needs to have some localization at first: people who work in X big company, people who want to do Y, whatever. Decide on what that community is likely to be, and come up with one big reason to switch and some reasons to believe that your language can deliver what it promises.
No.
Every buzzword you have included in your feature list is an enormous amount of work to be spec'd, implemented, documented, and tested.
How many people will be actively developing the language? I guess the web is full of failed programming language projects. (Same is true for non-mainstream OSes)
Have a look at what .Net/Visual Studio or Java/Eclipse have accomplished. That's 1000s of years of specification, development, tests, documentation, feedback, bug fixes, service packs.
During my last job I heard about somebody who wrote his own programming framework, because it was "better". The resulting program code (both in the framework and in the applications) is certainly unmaintainable once the original programmer quits, or is "hit by a bus", as the saying goes.
As the list sounds like Java++ or Mono++, you'd probably be more successful in engaging in an existing project, even if it won't have your name tag on it.
Perhaps you missed one key term. Performance.
In any case, unless this new language has some really out-of-this-world features(ex: 100% increase in performance over other web development languages), I think it will be yet another fish in the pond.
Currently I'm responsible for maintaining a framework developed/owned by my company. It's a nightmare. Unless there is a mainstream community, working on this full time, it's really an elephant. I do not appreciate my company's decision to develop its own framework(because it's supposed to be "faster") day 'n night.
The language tastes good in my opinion, I don't want use java for a simple website but I would like to have types and things like that. ASP .NET is a problem because of licensing and I can't afford those licenses for a single website... Also features looks good
Remember a lot of operator overloading: I think is the biggest thing that PHP is actually missing. It allows classes to behave much more like basic types :)
When you have something to test I'll love to help you with it! Thanks
Well, if you have to reinvent the wheel, you can go for it :)
I am not going to give you any examples of languages or language features, but I will give you one advice instead:
Supporting framework is what is the most important thing. People will tend to love it or hate it, depending on how easy is to write good code that get job done. Therefore, please do usability test before releasing it. I mean ask several people how they will do certain task and create API accordingly. Then test beta API on other coders and listen carefully to their comments.
Regards and good luck :)
There's always space for another programming language. Apart from getting the design right, I think the biggest problem is coming across as just another wannabe language. So you may want to look at your marketing, you need a big sponsor who can integrate your language into their products, or you need to generate a buzz around it, easiest way is astroturfing. Good luck.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_programming_languages
NB the names G and G++ aren't taken. Oh and watch out for the patent trolls.
Edit
Oops G / G++ are taken... still there are plenty more letters left.
This sounds more like a "systems" language rather than a "web development language". The major languages in this category (other than C++/C) are D and Go.
My advice to you would be to not start from scratch but examine the possibility of creating tools or libraries for those languages, and seeing just how far you can push them.
I've designed some educational programming languages and interpreters for them, but my problem always was that they ended up "normal" and "boring", mostly similar to some kind of existing language (ASM and BASIC).
I find it really hard to come up with new ideas for syntax features, "neat things" and new or very modified programming paradigms for it. I always thought that it was hard to come up with good new things not fun/useless new things for this case.
I wondered if you could help me out with your creativity:
What features in terms of language syntax and built-in functions as well as maybe even new paradigms can I work into my language to keep it useless but more fun, enjoyable, interesting and/or different to program in?
I always thought that it was hard to come up with good new things
You were right. This is why John Backus, Ken Iverson, Niklaus Wirth, Robin Milner, Kristen Nygaard and Ole-Johan Dahl, Alan Kay, and Barbara Liskov all won Turing Awards—they contributed good new ideas to the design of programming languages.
If you want to add a dash of interest to your own designs, these are excellent people to steal from.
Both ASM and BASIC are imperative languages, so you might want to consider features of functional programming languages, especially lambdas and maps. You might also want to consider interesting flows of control, for example, being able to throw an exception and then later, as a result of catching the exception and making a certain call, resume from the point that the exception was thrown (albeit using a modified environment). Also, co-routines, or other forms of language-level parallelism are often interesting.
In addition to Michael's comment on functional languages, look at closures and blocks (like they're done in Objective-C). Those let you treat functions or pieces of code as first-class objects that you can pass around and call on demand. Some cool stuff can be done with that, and it's also shaping up to becoming the paradigm for programming massively multi-core systems.
You could also look into currying, which means binding some of a function's parameters, so you can then use it on fewer arguments. That way, you could create a base-b logarithm function, which you could curry to create functions for the base-2, base-10, etc. logarithm.
And something less functional (as in language): look at Ruby's way of treating everything as an object (even numbers), you can do quite a bit with that. Like an object-oriented runtime with introspection, an interpreter "for free," etc. Implementing OOP stuff is easier than you'd think.
A lot of stuff has been done in the last 30-odd years, don't restrict yourself to 70s-style programming! ;) If you're looking for inspiration, check out Ruby, Python, Scala, Objective-C, JavaScript (read Douglas Crockford's JavaScript: The Good Parts), etc.
The Esolang wiki gives a good sample of the weirds and wonderfuls of all kinds of esoteric programming languages, including many user creations. Perhaps some inspiration for something sane lies therein.
look at Forth. It is something original. Too original.
intercal has plenty of unusual language features B-)
I've always thought it would be neat to apply CSP to a stack based language. Could get pretty interesting.
See Wikipedia: Programming Languages. There are many useful links, especially in the Taxonomies section.
So much of the "new" is really just "forgotten old". I will hold my thoughts on some of the "popular" programming languages of the day.
There are many things that could be explored and active research is being done on some of them. Some of the things I think would be useful are:
real continuations in a non-functional language
here is an attempt to add them on to C++: http://mainisusuallyafunction.blogspot.co.nz/2012/02/continuations-in-c-with-fork.html
languages that let the user create new syntax elements
FORTH and J might be starting points.
Pogoscript is interesting as well because flow control constructs like if/elseif/else and while/wend arten't special can be created in user code.
custom user defined operators actually aren't new: I think Haskell, Nemerle, Kaleidoscope and several others already do this but even that wouldn't be "boring"
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.
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.