Talk:Functional programming: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 19:36, 14 January 2019

Latest revision as of 13:02, 30 March 2025

(27 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown)

Line 1:

{{Article history

{{ArticleHistory

|action1=FAC

|action1date=22:12, 21 June 2006

Line 26:

|topic=Engtech

}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1=

{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Technology|class=C}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia |1=En-Functional_programming.ogg |2=446744874}}

{{WikiProjectBannerShell |1=

{{WikiProject Computing|importance=Top |software=y |software-importance=Top |science=y |science-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia |1=En-Functional_programming.ogg |2=446744874}}

{{WikiProject ComputingComputer |class=B |importance=Top |software=y |software-importance=Top |science=y |science-importance=Top}}

{{WikiProject Computer science |class=B |importance=Top}}

}}

{{User:MiszaBot/config

Line 40 ⟶ 39:

|archive = Talk:Functional programming/Archive %(counter)d

}}

{{Archives |bot=MiszaBotLowercase Isigmabot III |age=3 |units=months |search=yes |index=/Archive index }}

{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn

|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes

}}

== Letters between Beckus and Dijkstra ==

== Fixing the lede ==

The section about Beckus delivering a Turing Award lecture about FP should also include the letters surrounding that period between Dijkstra & Beckus. https://medium.com/@acidflask/this-guys-arrogance-takes-your-breath-away-5b903624ca5f <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/144.6.170.230|144.6.170.230]] ([[User talk:144.6.170.230#top|talk]]) 09:35, 30 March 2025 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Coding Styles section mostly detracts ==

I've reverted Ruud Koot's lede, as it's against [[WP:JARGON]] and [[WP:TECHNICAL]], which requires us to provide a description that can be understood by anyone. If the current English intro contains bad English grammar, then let's work in fixing the grammar, but the article still should start with a description that uses layman terms. The more technical description can also be provided right afterwards, for increased precision.

Coding styles are different opinionated approaches to the same problem. For example, the Haskell section of Coding Styles effectively illustrates different coding styles. Implementing the same code in different languages is not an example of different coding styles, as the different languages may use the same coding style.

Can you please exactly identify what are the problems with the current wording? [[User:Diego Moya|Diego Moya]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 19:52, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

Languages that only feature one coding style should be removed from this section (or have another coding style added), as they have nothing to compare/contrast and therefore only confuse and detract from the actually beneficial sections. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/64.141.80.20|64.141.80.20]] ([[User talk:64.141.80.20#top|talk]]) 05:45, 3 June 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: "a style of building the structure and elements computer programs" isn't grammatically correct English, nor is "not in the program's state". It is not possible to begin discussing the semantics of a piece of writing if it doesn't even begin to be syntactically correct. Exactingly what do you think is wrong with the original lede? —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 21:41, 11 August 2013 (UTC)

::It requires the reader to already understand the concepts of "programming paradigm", "computaton", "evaluation" and "application of functions", "state", "mutable data" and "lambda calculus" in order to begin making sense of the definition. The new definition states earlier the main practical aspect of FP, that functions always return the same value given the same input; this follows the advice to [[Wikipedia:TECHNICAL#Write_one_level_down|write one level down]], providing a definition based on concrete and simple concepts instead of complex abstractions. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego Moya]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 06:27, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

:::I very much prefer Ruud Koot's lede to the current one. It's much more clearly written, and gives a more informative overview of the topic. Functional programming ''is'' a [[programming paradigm]], so I don't understand the aversion to mentioning that in the lead sentence (and I don't see the need for a definition like "''a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs''" which is so vague that it is useless). If a user can't understand what [[computation]] or [[evaluation of a function]] is, they are not going to be able to understand what functional programming is, no matter how much you dumb down or oversimplify the lead. It's good to avoid ''unnecessary'' jargon, but some subjects simply require the reader to have some prerequisite knowledge. For instance, the article [[manifold]] doesn't try to target itself towards users who have no idea what a [[topological space]] or [[neighborhood (mathematics)|neighborhood]] is -- you just can't talk about the subject without bringing these up. Likewise, you cannot accurately talk about functional programming without discussing [[evaluation]], [[program state]], or the [[lambda calculus]]. Anyhow, I support reverting back to Ruud Koot's version, and making whatever improvements you want to that, rather than trying to fix the current one. -- [[User:Mesoderm|Mesoderm]] ([[User talk:Mesoderm|talk]]) 08:14, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

::::It's a matter of style (and the current lede includes the term "programming paradigm", so I don't understand where you see any aversion to mentioning it). Nobody is suggesting removing those terms for precision, it's just that there's no need to have them in the first sentence. Other topics that are not functional programming deal with computation, lambda calculus and evaluation, so those are not definitory of FP; but using functions that always return the same result to build programs is unique to this paradigm, so it's a good definition. (And no, I don't think that FP is an essentially complex subject nor that it requires understanding lambda calculus to grasp it). [[User:Diego Moya|Diego Moya]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 13:17, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::I'm sorry, I misspoke -- I didn't intend to say that you had an aversion to including [[programming paradigm]] in the first sentence - I meant an aversion to including it with just a wikilink without the (oversimplified/incorrect) definition. Anyhow, I don't want to argue about this either, but I don't think it's just "a matter of style". I think in this case, it's also a matter of being incorrect, oversimplified, and less readable. But now that I've made my view clear on this, I'll let other editors decide what to do about it. -- [[User:Mesoderm|Mesoderm]] ([[User talk:Mesoderm|talk]]) 18:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

::: My holiday is over and I'm not planning to spent much time on pointless arguing over over lede sections the comming months, so I'll keep it brief:

:::# "building the structure and elements of computer programs" is a vague and confusingly worded synonym for "computer programming". Saying that "functional programming is a style of computer programming" carries the exact same information, except that is can be understood instead of misunderstood.

:::# "based on pure functions that produce results that depend only on their inputs and not on the program state":

:::#* "based on" is one of those ambiguous phrases that should be avoided. As not ''all'' functional programming is done purely, "emphasizes" would probably be a more appropriate choice. A verbal noun is missing in this sentence, it should probably be "evaluation".

:::#* I would say that "pure function" is unnecessary jargon here, one should only have to be thinking about functions in the mathematical sense of the word.

:::#* "and not on the program state": Depending on how you define program state, this is not even correct. It is mutable state that is avoided in functional programming. But talking about mutable state only makes sense when you are thinking about imperative languages (which wouldn't be an unreasonable assumption to make for most readers, however): an explicit contrast with imperative languages needs to be made, like the previous lede did.

:::# "It is a declarative programming paradigm, which means programming is done with expressions and uses no implicit state.": "Done with" is, again, too vague. This is, as currently phrased, not even an accepted definition of declarative programming. "Used no implicit state" duplicates the previous sentence.

:::# "In functional code," More duplication of what has already been said (although, arguably, this time it is stated more clearly.)

:::# "Eliminating side effects..." Where do these "side effects" suddenly come from? As an expert I know that having functions depend on mutable state is a from of side effect, but we haven't even introduced mutable side effects yet. Any poor PHP programming is going to be hopelessly lost by now.

:::It would be more effective to improve the previous lede&mdash;there certain is much room for improvement there as well&mdash;than to continue with this trainwreck: it is even less accessible to layman than the previous lede. —''[[User:Ruud Koot|Ruud]]'' 17:35, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

: Agree. This section should be cleaned-up. No point in listing non-functional languages. Sure, any imperative language can have `fib(n) = fib(n-1) + fib(n-2)` defined, but that's not the point, or else this list will grow indefinitely. [[User:Ybungalobill|bungalo]] ([[User talk:Ybungalobill|talk]]) 22:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

=== Functional versus pure functional in lede ===

I agree. I do not think that including these examples provide much value at all; there is already an example of imperative vs. functional programming at the top of the section. I don't even think the Haskell part should remain: I don't think that showing different coding styles is particularly relevant to an understanding of FP, and something like that would be better suited for a Haskell tutorial rather than an encyclopaedia article. I would like to remove the entire "Coding Styles" subsection if there are no objections. [[User:Quuxbazbarfoo|Quuxbazbarfoo]] ([[User talk:Quuxbazbarfoo|talk]]) 21:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

The first sentence is

:: Agreed. It provides no value at all. As it currently exists, it simply encourages people to add their own favorite languages to the list. I will remove the section. --[[User:Nullzero|Nullzero]] ([[User talk:Nullzero|talk]]) 21:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

<blockquote>In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm—a style of building the structure and elements of computer programs—that treats computation as '''the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids changing-state and mutable data'''.</blockquote>

== Criticism section ==

This sounds like "pure functional programming" to me, rather than just "functional". I would say functional programming is a style where you compose functions to get results, as opposed to getting results via a step-by-step process. I would consider the following functional, though not pure functional (or a good idea).

> Functional programming is also key to some languages that have found success in specific domains, like JavaScript in the Web.

def get_five_ints():

return list(map(lambda _: int(input("Enter an integer: ")), range(5)))

This is rather opinionated and poorly reflected in the current state of the art in Javscript. Javascript tends to be massively used as OOP and not functional despite some trends going on. \\ <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2A01:E0A:5D3:2650:51F0:F3D2:7D33:13D8|2A01:E0A:5D3:2650:51F0:F3D2:7D33:13D8]] ([[User talk:2A01:E0A:5D3:2650:51F0:F3D2:7D33:13D8#top|talk]]) 11:19, 21 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

"Functional" is a manner of abstraction, but "pure functional" gives the nice guarantees like referential transparency and lazy evaluation. --[[Special:Contributions/72.226.86.106|72.226.86.106]] ([[User talk:72.226.86.106|talk]]) 02:37, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

I've reverted the criticism section for now. I think a criticism section certainly is a good idea, but I don't really understand any of the points in the current one, and it doesn't have any references. If anyone can provide clarification or references for these points that would be much appreciated ({{ping|35.137.225.220}}).

== D language? ==

> it does not really allow the developer to build and manipulate "categories" as first class objects.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming#D <- Why is D chosen as an example of an imperative language that also does functional programming? This trend of filling all Wikipedia pages with advertisements of D makes me vomit. I don't see any reason why D should be considered in this context. It's an unpopular language without formal semantics.. The language author didn't even know what higher order functions are some years ago (see [https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/comp.lang.misc/gOZWUGWVmCw Jon Harrop vs Walter Bright]). [[Special:Contributions/84.250.47.87|84.250.47.87]] ([[User talk:84.250.47.87|talk]]) 03:00, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

:D is pretty similar to C. I found the example helpful in its familiarity. Even if it is unpopular (currently [http://langpop.com/ ranked 15th on langpop], over the other example languages) and despite any faults it may have for functional programming ({{citeneeded}}?), it is useful for examples just by being familiar to C-family programmers. --[[Special:Contributions/72.226.86.106|72.226.86.106]] ([[User talk:72.226.86.106|talk]]) 18:54, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Is this really a bad thing? I don't think FP is advertised as a setting for *doing* category theory, it merely uses concepts from category theory.

== The section on non-functional languages ==

>Note that a "category" is just a computation graph (not unlike TensorFlow).

<blockquote>First-class functions have slowly been added to mainstream languages. For example, in early 1994, support for lambda, filter, map, and reduce was added to Python. Then during the development of Python 3000, Guido van Rossum called for the removal of these features.[44] However, he later changed his mind, and only reduce was removed,[45] though it remains accessible via the functools standard library module.[46]</blockquote>

Not sure what this means; categories are very general and abstract, they don't encode any specific form of computation. I don't know much about TensorFlow and have just done a very brief search on computation graphs, but I don't see the connection here. If there's a source I'd be interested in reading it.

This seems to equate first-class functions with lambda, map, filter, and reduce. Python had first-class functions from the beginning (Guido: "... I had made functions first-class objects..."[http://python-history.blogspot.de/2009/04/origins-of-pythons-functional-features.html]). Python shouldn't be listed as a language that ''added'' first-class functions.

> "internal" computation graph called the Kleisli category

C/C++ has passing of function pointers, and C++ templating allow them to be used without fully specifying type. The C++ standard [http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/algorithm/ <code><algorithm></code> header] has many functions which take functions as parameters, and the [http://www.cplusplus.com/reference/functional/ <code><functional></code> header] helps make and use function objects. C++11 added ''anonymous'' function support, and those lambdas can have closures. Functions are no more and no less first-class than before.

Also not sure what this means. Kleisli categories are another abstract concept, not tied to computation graphs.

Javascript deserves a mention. [[Douglas Crockford]] calls it a "Lisp in C's clothing".[http://www.crockford.com/javascript/javascript.html] It has first-class functions, closures, and anonymous functions, and it's common to pass functions as arguments.

--[[Special:Contributions/72.226.86.106|72.226.86.106]] ([[User talk:72.226.86.106|talk]]) 00:53, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

> Developers insert their code into the Kleisli category via monads

== The lede - as opposed to? ==

Monads have lots of uses in FP, but they're definitely not required, even for pure FP (AFAIK before monads were used in FP, Haskell programs were basically pure functions with inputs/outputs being lists of strings/events). Is this referring to doing impure computation in something like the IO monad?

"so calling a function f twice with the same value for an argument x will produce the same result f(x) each time"

> (basically 'proxies')

As opposed to all those other computer languages where calling f(x) produces different results each time for the same x? Perhaps there is an important idea there but if so it is pretty fucking badly expressed. Is it just that there are no global variables? If so, yawn. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 06:41, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

:{{ping|Greglocock}} I've tried to clarify, let me know if that's enough. It's not just about global variables, but having no state that is not captured in the arguments and return values. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 12:45, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

:P.S. Technically you can have global variables in a pure functional language, as long as they're immutable. "Global" is a term describing the [[Scope (computer science)|scope]] of a variable, not its changes in state. Having no state changes in ''any'' variable in the whole program is a rather strong requirement, which changes the programming paradigm significantly with respect to imperative programming. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 12:52, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

::Thanks. So b=2*a is ok, but a=2*a is not? I can see that that is more robust in general, if a tad inconvenient for incrementing indices. [[User:Greglocock|Greglocock]] ([[User talk:Greglocock|talk]]) 00:31, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

::: Yes, that's pretty much the essence; destructive updates to named variables are not allowed. The typical way of "incrementing indices" is passing the increased value to a recursive call; functional programming depends heavily on [[recursion]]. [[User:Diego Moya|Diego]] ([[User talk:Diego Moya|talk]]) 06:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

:::{{ping|Greglocock}} rand() will produce different results each time. scanner.nextInt() can produce new results each time. With a pure function, a compiler could theoretically decide that a result isn't used so the call is unneeded, or that a result is used a lot and it can be cached. A skipped call to rand() or scanner.nextInt() will affect the results of a program, while a skipped call to fibonacci(n) should not.

:::Most uses for incrementing indices are made unnecessary in functional programming languages. You would typically use a higher-order function like [[map (higher-order function)|map]], which roughly corresponds to the head of a for-loop, and give it another function, which roughly corresponds to the body of a for-loop. Many other languages have support for these concepts. C++'s <algorithm> library, Java's Stream interface, and Javascript's Array methods all have some kind of map/filter/reduce equivalent, which take a sequence and a function and return a transformed sequence or an aggregate value.

:::It is theoretically possible to allow updates to named variables within the body of a function, as long as the variables are local. The [[D programming language]] allows such updates in its pure functions.[https://dlang.org/spec/function.html#pure-functions] --[[Special:Contributions/96.232.200.75|96.232.200.75]] ([[User talk:96.232.200.75|talk]]) 20:20, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

What kind of proxies are these?

== External links modified ==

> notoriously arcane math terminology.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Complex terminology is certainly a common criticism of FP (especially Haskell), but I think this can be said in a more neutral way.

I have just modified 2 external links on [[Functional programming]]. Please take a moment to review [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=prev&oldid=804419999 my edit]. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit [[User:Cyberpower678/FaQs#InternetArchiveBot|this simple FaQ]] for additional information. I made the following changes:

*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aquabu.com/2008/02/16/fibonacci-sequence-recursion-in-erlang

*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110629183752/http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html to http://www.mactech.com/articles/mactech/Vol.03/03.1/SchemeWindows/index.html

[[User:Quuxbazbarfoo|Quuxbazbarfoo]] ([[User talk:Quuxbazbarfoo|talk]]) 19:26, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

:: I feel like FP terminology is not complex when you use it to ''compute''. It only becomes complex when, ironically, you use it to do category theory, with all complexity coming from category theory. Just my 2 cents. --[[User:Nullzero|Nullzero]] ([[User talk:Nullzero|talk]]) 03:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

== Lead section ==

Cheers.—[[User:InternetArchiveBot|'''<span style="color:darkgrey;font-family:monospace">InternetArchiveBot</span>''']] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">([[User talk:InternetArchiveBot|Report bug]])</span> 22:04, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the lead section is way too heavy on citations. Do we really need a citation from 1987 on how to program a text editor? What is that doing there anyway (ref name="hartheimer1987")? Honestly, there should be no citations in a lead section, unless something is so controversial it causes a knee-jerk reaction from newbies to add a citation needed tag without first checking the body of the article. See [[WP:LEAD]]. Please get rid of most of them, the article will be easier to deal with. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 18:24, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

== TheRemain sectionfocused on non-functional languagesprogramming ==

If no one objects I'm going to clean up sections that discuss points unrelated to function vs. other paradigms. For example, the start of Abstraction compared the time it takes to execute an even() call vs calling the mod operator directly. On one compiler. For a language which compiles to java bytecode and was then tested on one jre/jvm. Even if this comparison was more thorough, I don't see how this in any way relates to a definition of functional programming or a comparison to other paradigms. [[User:Dontfunkintellme|Dontfunkintellme]] ([[User talk:Dontfunkintellme|talk]]) 15:14, 29 March 2025 (UTC)