Note Phil is much more sympathetic to functional programming now than when he wrote this.
FP is cool!
With FunctionalReactiveProgramming I may even have to take back what I say below about not doing input and output well.
Am now teaching HaskellLanguage, better brush up.
Debates and Rants
FP "easy to understand"
OTOH this is what gives functional programming a bad name : Functional programs are often easier to understand. You should be able to understand the program without any previous knowledge of either Haskell or quicksort. The same certainly cannot be said of the C program.
This is so patently false it's unbelievable. Yep, the quicksort in Haskell is beautifully compact. I wish I had access to that kind of expressivity. But the flip-side of that is a kind of density. The same problem I have with maths. If you don't undertand it, you can't decode it incrementally. (LookMathsUp)
You can't look at one bit and say, "OK, I see what that bit's doing. There's a 3 in the little box marked A. So, given that, let's look at what the next bit is doing."
Classic issue of "what's the easiest way to explain X" ... depends who you're talking to !
I think I'm saying something a bit different. Or at least, one level higher. Not "what is easiest to understand" but "what is easiest to work out how to understand". I dunno. Maybe you can make a case for collapsing these together and the distinction isn't such a big deal.
Update : Having just had a disasterous lecture where I tried to show both the Haskell QuickSort and a Pythonic translation of the C quicksort, I must confess I've a new respect for the Haskell claim.
Phil's new first rule of computer science lecturing : don't attempt to demonstrate an imperative QuickSort by stepping through it on the whiteboard. Especially when you haven't tried it at home. Firstly it's very long. Secondly it's easy to make a mistake.
A horrible lecture yesterday. I fell into one of those "mumbling into the whiteboard for 20 minutes with my back to the students" traps. Having started to manually running through the quicksort, I found, after about 6 or 7 minutes that I'd made a mistake, coming out of the first "increase-the-lower-bound while loop" too early. I appologised and went back to correct it, but it became extremely clear that actually working through the algorithm until the list was sorted would take far longer than I wanted to spend, and the students were already ignoring me and chatting among themselves. Admitedly some were looking at the paper copy I'd given them and trying to work it out. Others were staring glassy eyed at me. So I asked if they preferred to work through it themselves or for me to continue. No one answered. Eventually one guy indicated that I should continue, but as I turned back I could tell perfectly well that even he wasn't really paying attention or following what I was saying. I panicked and took refuge in trying to work through it again for five minutes and then gave up. "It does work" I tried to assure them, lamely. "Let's look at the Haskell version."
But by then I really didn't have the presence to summon their attention back. And my vocabulary and any semblance of grammatical competence had completely disintegrated. Even the recursive version takes time to write, and the audience were restive. Was I going to expect them to do the exercises before they left? No, I relented. This time they could take them home. That was the basic cue for some to start to get up and leave. "If anyone had any problems understanding this, come up and see me now and I'll explain individually" I invited. No one took me up on the offer.
One student who had already taught quicksort on another course, took pity on me and came up and started to demonstrate that my program did really work. I let the others drifted off without a word. A couple of the students stayed behind and finished their exercise. Their verdict : the Python was very complicated, but the Haskell was interesting and kind of self-explanatory.
Pros and Cons Rant
But, honestly!!! It's kind of hilarious reading the online stuff about Haskell and the "benefits of functional programming". First, they always seem to compare it with C. So benefits of functional programming (hereafter BOFP) include dynamic memory management and strong type-checking. Beyond that it's back to "simplicity" and "elegance" and the wonders of no assignment.
The Haskell guy (grudgingly http://www.haskell.org/complex/why_does_haskell_matter.html), grudgingly,) admits that you can do higher level functions and pass functions as arguments in Java, but then says : In Java you often have to provide a Comparator object for trees and other standard data structures. The difference is that the Haskell way is a lot more intuitive and elegant (creating a separate type just for comparing two other types and then passing an object of this type is hardly an elegant way of doing it)
No mention that there are plenty of imperative languages with elegant Lambdas, closures, blocks etc. or that even C can pass a pointer to a function without "creating a separate type".
Hmmm. Is this a coup. Are functional programming people actually getting me to defend Java?
Don't panic. No, the next bit makes abundantly clear, despite all the shouting about strong typing (better than malloc) Haskell's automatic type-inference and preference for the most general, actually tilts towards sanity. Even I can get behind a "type as much as you need" system like that.
At the end, of course, there's the usual question.
So if Haskell is so great, how come it isn't "mainstream"?
And the usual sort of attempt to explain it away in terms of LockIn by other languages or stupid programmers. Here I really want to shake this author (and his like). And shout :
Look! Functional Programming is an evolutionary dead-end. It's going precisely nowhere because
it can't do input and output!
The truth is 99% of what programs do is communicate with things outside themselves ... either users, or other resources in the operating system, or databases, or other services over the internet, or chemical plants, or ...
But the functional paradigm (proudly) doesn't do input and output. Sure, you can graft it on. Functional programming languages have to have some kind of I/O. But you can't do it and maintain the purity that everyone seems so excited about. Interaction with the outside world requires programs that maintain the state of their dialog. It needs that the sequence of the interaction is managed explicitly. FP, by ruling out both state and explicit control of sequence, basically declares that it isn't interested in being used for 99% of the things we want computers to do.
I totally agree. SJ
1) Hmmm. What about stateless web-servers? And Unix tools designed to be chained together through piping? These don't need to hold any other kind of state or finer grained interaction except for the initial call and response. FP might suit these apps.
: Stateless web-servers do store state in a database. So an FP CGI script needs to sully itself to that extent. But I admit there may be more scope there than I originally gave credit for. Unix tools, yep, maybe those too. (See also TheArtOfUnixProgramming)
2) They think they've solved it with "worlds" : http://www.haskell.org/complex/introduction_to_programming.html
: Yeah, but I don't believe them. Worlds are a kludge. First, they are not in any sense "elegant" or "easy" to understand. Second, the "impure" bit that talks to them has reverted to being "imperative programming". The model of thin imperative shell over pure functional core only holds if the amount of IO is actually a thin shell's worth. The higher the ratio of IO to non-IO the larger your shell becomes, and as the guy says If you wish to write imperative programs, you're better off using an imperative language! Which is pretty much the reason people do use imperative languages.
and here : http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~txa/publ/beast.pdf
I really find it wrong that the value of computer languages is discussed by computer scientists (who are in fact mathematicians). All computing languages are mathematically equivalent (in some sense, I would love to see an analyzis bellow the trivial polynomial time), all are equally good for the machines. For the machines it does not matter and what is left is the human side so clearly the value of computer languages should be discussed by psychologists not by mathematicians.
By the way, my Master Degree thesis was another proof of the fact that the type inference for the ML language (and I believe for others as well, it was pretty general reasoning) is complete in the Deterministic Expotential Time (that is you can write programs in ML that take expotential time, as function of the length of the program, to compile).
Another issue. You can't actually find a tutorial for a functional programming language which doesn't doesn't draw all its examples and explanations from mathematics. From initial demonstrations of finding the greatest common denomenator through to explaining list comprehensions in terms of set comprehensions. FP is designed by pure mathematicians for pure mathematicians and the kinds of problems they're interested in.
If you want to try to understand FP (or teach it) you have to start by learning (teaching) this whole mathematical world-view and set of problems :-(
Anyone know a tutorial for FP which doesn't start assuming such knowledge and draws its examples from a different domain?
-- http://www.haskell.org/soe/ -- I haven't read this book but it sounds like your request: "Rather than using the conventional mathematical examples commonly found in other programming language textbooks, the author draws examples from multimedia applications, including graphics, animation, and computer music, thus rewarding the reader with working programs for inherently more interesting applications."
-- http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/ -- While this doesn't specifically teach just functional programming, this online book builds stuff like Shoutcast servers and unit test frameworks. Common Lisp is a multiparadigm language -- the advantage is you get to know the natural limits of what functional programming can express well, without being forced to artificially stuff everything in that single paradigm. You may also like this: They http://www.lisperati.com/casting.html They don't talk about monads though, if that's what you want.
-- John Gabbour
See also :
Added 2018-10-08 : Originally 2018-10-08