Related
I recently started programming in Julia for research purposes. Going through it I started loving the syntax, I positively experienced the community here in SO and now I am thinking about porting some code from other programming languages.
Working with highly computational expensive forecasting models, it would be nice to have them all in a powerful modern language as Julia.
I would like to create a project and I am wondering how I should design it. I am concerned both from a performance and a language perspective (i.e.: Would it be better to create modules – submodules – functions or something else would be preferred? Is it better off to use dictionaries or custom types?).
I have looked at different GitHub projects in my field, but I haven't really found a common standard. Therefore I am wondering: what is more in the spirit of the Julia language and philosophy?
EDIT:
It has been pointed out that this question might be too generic. Therefore, I would like to focus it on how it would be better structuring modules (i.e. separate modules for main functions and subroutines versus modules and submodules, etc.). I believe this would be enough for me to have a feel about what might be considered in the spirit of the Julia language and philosophy. Of course, additional examples and references are more than welcome.
The most you'll find is that there is an "official" style-guide. The rest of the "Julian" style is ill-defined, but there are some ways to heuristically define it.
First of all, it means designing the software around multiple dispatch and the type system. A software which follows a Julian design philosophy usually won't be defining a bunch of functions like test_pumpkin and test_pineapple, instead it will use dispatches on test for types Pumpkin and Pineapple. This allows for clean/understandable code. It will break tasks up into small type-stable functions which will allow for good performance. It likely will also be written very generically, allowing the user to use items that are subtypes of AbstractArray or Number, and using the power of dispatch to allow their software to work on numbers they've never even heard of. (In this respect, custom types are recommended over dictionaries when you need performance. However, for a type you have to know all of the fields at the beginning, which means some things require dictionaries.)
A software which follows a Julian design philosophy may also implement a DSL (Domain-Specific Language) to allow a simpler interface to the user. Instead of requiring the user to conform to archaic standards derived from C/Fortran, or write large repetitive items and inputs, the package may provide macros to allow the user to more heuristically define the problem for the software to solve.
Other items which are part of the Julian design philosophy are up for much debate. Is proper Julia code devectorized? I would say no, and the loop fusing broadcast . is a powerful way to write MATLAB-style "vectorized" code and have it be perform like a devectorized loop. However, I have seen others prefer devectorized styles.
Also note that Julia is very different from something like Python where in Julia, you can essentially "build your own standard way of doing something". Since there's no performance penalty for functions/types declared in packages rather than Base, you can build your own Julia world if you want, using macros to define your own "function-like" objects, etc. I mean, you can re-create Java styles in Julia if you wanted.
Here seems to be the two biggest things I can take from the How to Design Programs (simplified Racket) course I just finished, straight from the lecture notes of the course:
1) Tail call optimization, and the lack thereof in non-functional languages:
Sadly, most other languages do not support TAIL CALL
OPTIMIZATION. Put another way, they do build up a stack
even for tail calls.
Tail call optimization was invented in the mid 70s, long
after the main elements of most languages were developed.
Because they do not have tail call optimization, these
languages provide a fixed set of LOOPING CONSTRUCTS that
make it possible to traverse arbitrary sized data.
a) What are the equivalents to this type of optimization in procedural languages that don't feature it?
b) Do using those equivalents mean we avoid building up a stack in similar situations in languages that don't have it?
2) Mutation and multicore processors
This mechanism is fundamental in almost any other language you
program in. We have delayed introducing it until now for
several reasons:
despite being fundamental, it is surprisingly complex
overuse of it leads to programs that are not amenable
to parallelization (running on multiple processors).
Since multi-core computers are now common, the ability
to use mutation only when needed is becoming more and
more important
overuse of mutation can also make it difficult to
understand programs, and difficult to test them well
But mutable variables are important, and learning this mechanism
will give you more preparation to work with Java, Python and many
other languages. Even in such languages, you want to use a style
called "mostly functional programming".
I learned some Java, Python and C++ before taking this course, so came to take mutation for granted. Now that has been all thrown in the air by the above statement. My questions are:
a) where could I find more detailed information regarding what is suggested in the 2nd bullet, and what to do about it, and
b) what kind of patterns would emerge from a "mostly functional programming" style, as opposed to a more careless style I probably would have had had I continued on with those other languages instead of taking this course?
As Leppie points out, looping constructs manage to recover the space savings of proper tail calling, for the particular kinds of loops that they support. The only problem with looping constructs is that the ones you have are never enough, unless you just hurl the ball into the user's court and force them to model the stack explicitly.
To take an example, suppose you're traversing a binary tree using a loop. It works... but you need to explicitly keep track of the "ones to come back to." A recursive traversal in a tail-calling language allows you to have your cake and eat it too, by not wasting space when not required, and not forcing you to keep track of the stack yourself.
Your question on parallelism and concurrency is much more wide-open, and the best pointers are probably to areas of research, rather than existing solutions. I think that most would agree that there's a crisis going on in the computing world; how do we adapt our mutation-heavy programming skills to the new multi-core world?
Simply switching to a functional paradigm isn't a silver bullet here, either; we still don't know how to write high-level code and generate blazing fast non-mutating run-concurrently code. Lots of folks are working on this, though!
To expand on the "mutability makes parallelism hard" concept, when you have multiple cores going, you have to use synchronisation if you want to modify something from one core and have it be seen consistently by all the other cores.
Getting synchronisation right is hard. If you over-synchronise, you have deadlocks, slow (serial rather than parallel) performance, etc. If you under-synchronise, you have partially-observed changes (where another core sees only a portion of the changes you made from a different core), leaving your objects observed in an invalid "halfway changed" state.
It is for that reason that many functional programming languages encourage a message-queue concept instead of a shared state concept. In that case, the only shared state is the message queue, and managing synchronisation in a message queue is a solved problem.
a) What are the equivalents to this type of optimization in procedural languages that don't feature it? b) Do using those equivalents mean we avoid building up a stack in similar situations in languages that don't have it?
Well, the significance of a tail call is that it can evaluate another function without adding to the call stack, so anything that builds up the stack can't really be called an equivalent.
A tail call behaves essentially like a jump to the new code, using the language trappings of a function call and all the appropriate detail management. So in languages without this optimization, you'd use a jump within a single function. Loops, conditional blocks, or even arbitrary goto statements if nothing else works.
a) where could I find more detailed information regarding what is suggested in the 2nd bullet, and what to do about it
The second bullet sounds like an oversimplification. There are many ways to make parallelization more difficult than it needs to be, and overuse of mutation is just one.
However, note that parallelization (splitting a task into pieces that can be done simultaneously) is not entirely the same thing as concurrency (having multiple tasks executed simultaneously that may interact), though there's certainly overlap. Avoiding mutation is incredibly helpful in writing concurrent programs, since immutable data avoids a lot of race conditions and resource contention that would otherwise be possible.
b) what kind of patterns would emerge from a "mostly functional programming" style, as opposed to a more careless style I probably would have had had I continued on with those other languages instead of taking this course?
Have you looked at Haskell or Clojure? Both are heavily inclined to a very functional style emphasizing controlled mutation. Haskell is more rigorous about it but has a lot of tools for working with limited forms of mutability, while Clojure is a bit more informal and might be more familiar to you since it's another Lisp dialect.
I am curious how functional languages compare (in general) to more "traditional" languages such as C# and Java for large programs. Does program flow become difficult to follow more quickly than if a non-functional language is used? Are there other issues or things to consider when writing a large software project using a functional language?
Thanks!
Functional programming aims to reduce the complexity of large systems, by isolating each operation from others. When you program without side-effects, you know that you can look at each function individually - yes, understanding that one function may well involve understanding other functions too, but at least you know it won't interfere with some other piece of system state elsewhere.
Of course this is assuming completely pure functional programming - which certainly isn't always the case. You can use more traditional languages in a functional way too, avoiding side-effects where possible. But the principle is an important one: avoiding side-effects leads to more maintainable, understandable and testable code.
Does program flow become difficult to follow more quickly than if a >non-functional language is used?
"Program flow" is probably the wrong concept to analyze a large functional program. Control flow can become baroque because there are higher-order functions, but these are generally easy to understand because there is rarely any shared mutable state to worry about, so you can just think about arguments and results. Certainly my experience is that I find it much easier to follow an aggressively functional program than an aggressively object-oriented program where parts of the implementation are smeared out over many classes. And I find it easier to follow a program written with higher-order functions than with dynamic dispatch. I also observe that my students, who are more representative of programmers as a whole, have difficulties with both inheritance and dynamic dispatch. They do not have comparable difficulties with higher-order functions.
Are there other issues or things to consider when writing a large
software project using a functional language?
The critical thing is a good module system. Here is some commentary.
The most powerful module system I know of the unit system of PLT Scheme designed by Matthew Flatt and Matthias Felleisen. This very powerful system unfortunately lacks static types, which I find a great aid to programming.
The next most powerful system is the Standard ML module system. Unfortunately Standard ML, while very expressive, also permits a great many questionable constructs, so it is easy for an amateur to make a real mess. Also, many programmers find it difficult to use Standard ML modules effectively.
The Objective Caml module system is very similar, but there are some differences which tend to mitigate the worst excesses of Standard ML. The languages are actually very similar, but the styles and idioms of Objective Caml make it significantly less likely that beginners will write insane programs.
The least powerful/expressive module system for a functional langauge is the Haskell module system. This system has a grave defect that there are no explicit interfaces, so most of the cognitive benefit of having modules is lost. Another sad outcome is that while the Haskell module system gives users a hierarchical name space, use of this name space (import qualified, in case you're an insider) is often deprecated, and many Haskell programmers write code as if everything were in one big, flat namespace. This practice amounts to abandoning another of the big benefits of modules.
If I had to write a big system in a functional language and had to be sure that other people understood it, I'd probably pick Standard ML, and I'd establish very stringent programming conventions for use of the module system. (E.g., explicit signatures everywhere, opague ascription with :>, and no use of open anywhere, ever.) For me the simplicity of the Standard ML core language (as compared with OCaml) and the more functional nature of the Standard ML Basis Library (as compared with OCaml) are more valuable than the superior aspects of the OCaml module system.
I've worked on just one really big Haskell program, and while I found (and continue to find) working in Haskell very enjoyable, I really missed not having explicit signatures.
Do functional languages cope well with complexity?
Some do. I've found ML modules and module types (both the Standard ML and Objective Caml) flavors invaluable tools for managing complexity, understanding complexity, and placing unbreachable firewalls between different parts of large programs. I have had less good experiences with Haskell
Final note: these aren't really new issues. Decomposing systems into modules with separate interfaces checked by the compiler has been an issue in Ada, C, C++, CLU, Modula-3, and I'm sure many other languages. The main benefit of a system like Standard ML or Caml is the that you get explicit signatures and modular type checking (something that the C++ community is currently struggling with around templates and concepts). I suspect that these issues are timeless and are going to be important for any large system, no matter the language of implementation.
I'd say the opposite. It is easier to reason about programs written in functional languages due to the lack of side-effects.
Usually it is not a matter of "functional" vs "procedural"; it is rather a matter of lazy evaluation.
Lazy evaluation is when you can handle values without actually computing them yet; rather, the value is attached to an expression which should yield the value if it is needed. The main example of a language with lazy evaluation is Haskell. Lazy evaluation allows the definition and processing of conceptually infinite data structures, so this is quite cool, but it also makes it somewhat more difficult for a human programmer to closely follow, in his mind, the sequence of things which will really happen on his computer.
For mostly historical reasons, most languages with lazy evaluation are "functional". I mean that these language have good syntaxic support for constructions which are typically functional.
Without lazy evaluation, functional and procedural languages allow the expression of the same algorithms, with the same complexity and similar "readability". Functional languages tend to value "pure functions", i.e. functions which have no side-effect. Order of evaluation for pure function is irrelevant: in that sense, pure functions help the programmer in knowing what happens by simply flagging parts for which knowing what happens in what order is not important. But that is an indirect benefit and pure functions also appear in procedural languages.
From what I can say, here are the key advantages of functional languages to cope with complexity :
Functional programming hates side-effects.
You can really black-box the different layers
and you won't be afraid of parallel processing
(actor model like in Erlang is really easier to use
than locks and threads).
Culturally, functional programmer
are used to design a DSL to express
and solve a problem. Identifying the fundamental
primitives of a problem is a radically
different approach than rushing to the brand
new trendy framework.
Historically, this field has been led by very smart people :
garbage collection, object oriented, metaprogramming...
All those concepts were first implemented on functional platform.
There is plenty of literature.
But the downside of those languages is that they lack support and experience in the industry. Having portability, performance and interoperability may be a real challenge where on other platform like Java, all of this seems obvious. That said, a language based on the JVM like Scala could be a really nice fit to benefit from both sides.
Does program flow become difficult to
follow more quickly than if a
non-functional language is used?
This may be the case, in that functional style encourages the programmer to prefer thinking in terms of abstract, logical transformations, mapping inputs to outputs. Thinking in terms of "program flow" presumes a sequential, stateful mode of operation--and while a functional program may have sequential state "under the hood", it usually isn't structured around that.
The difference in perspective can be easily seen by comparing imperative vs. functional approaches to "process a collection of data". The former tends to use structured iteration, like a for or while loop, telling the program "do this sequence of tasks, then move to the next one and repeat, until done". The latter tends to use abstracted recursion, like a fold or map function, telling the program "here's a function to combine/transform elements--now use it". It isn't necessary to follow the recursive program flow through a function like map; because it's a stateless abstraction, it's sufficient to think in terms of what it means, not what it's doing.
It's perhaps somewhat telling that the functional approach has been slowly creeping into non-functional languages--consider foreach loops, Python's list comprehensions...
I've recently been learning about functional programming (specifically Haskell, but I've gone through tutorials on Lisp and Erlang as well). While I found the concepts very enlightening, I still don't see the practical side of the "no side effects" concept. What are the practical advantages of it? I'm trying to think in the functional mindset, but there are some situations that just seem overly complex without the ability to save state in an easy way (I don't consider Haskell's monads 'easy').
Is it worth continuing to learn Haskell (or another purely functional language) in-depth? Is functional or stateless programming actually more productive than procedural? Is it likely that I will continue to use Haskell or another functional language later, or should I learn it only for the understanding?
I care less about performance than productivity. So I'm mainly asking if I will be more productive in a functional language than a procedural/object-oriented/whatever.
Read Functional Programming in a Nutshell.
There are lots of advantages to stateless programming, not least of which is dramatically multithreaded and concurrent code. To put it bluntly, mutable state is enemy of multithreaded code. If values are immutable by default, programmers don't need to worry about one thread mutating the value of shared state between two threads, so it eliminates a whole class of multithreading bugs related to race conditions. Since there are no race conditions, there's no reason to use locks either, so immutability eliminates another whole class of bugs related to deadlocks as well.
That's the big reason why functional programming matters, and probably the best one for jumping on the functional programming train. There are also lots of other benefits, including simplified debugging (i.e. functions are pure and do not mutate state in other parts of an application), more terse and expressive code, less boilerplate code compared to languages which are heavily dependent on design patterns, and the compiler can more aggressively optimize your code.
The more pieces of your program are stateless, the more ways there are to put pieces together without having anything break. The power of the stateless paradigm lies not in statelessness (or purity) per se, but the ability it gives you to write powerful, reusable functions and combine them.
You can find a good tutorial with lots of examples in John Hughes's paper Why Functional Programming Matters (PDF).
You will be gobs more productive, especially if you pick a functional language that also has algebraic data types and pattern matching (Caml, SML, Haskell).
Many of the other answers have focused on the performance (parallelism) side of functional programming, which I believe is very important. However, you did specifically ask about productivity, as in, can you program the same thing faster in a functional paradigm than in an imperative paradigm.
I actually find (from personal experience) that programming in F# matches the way I think better, and so it's easier. I think that's the biggest difference. I've programmed in both F# and C#, and there's a lot less "fighting the language" in F#, which I love. You don't have to think about the details in F#. Here's a few examples of what I've found I really enjoy.
For example, even though F# is statically typed (all types are resolved at compile time), the type inference figures out what types you have, so you don't have to say it. And if it can't figure it out, it automatically makes your function/class/whatever generic. So you never have to write any generic whatever, it's all automatic. I find that means I'm spending more time thinking about the problem and less how to implement it. In fact, whenever I come back to C#, I find I really miss this type inference, you never realise how distracting it is until you don't need to do it anymore.
Also in F#, instead of writing loops, you call functions. It's a subtle change, but significant, because you don't have to think about the loop construct anymore. For example, here's a piece of code which would go through and match something (I can't remember what, it's from a project Euler puzzle):
let matchingFactors =
factors
|> Seq.filter (fun x -> largestPalindrome % x = 0)
|> Seq.map (fun x -> (x, largestPalindrome / x))
I realise that doing a filter then a map (that's a conversion of each element) in C# would be quite simple, but you have to think at a lower level. Particularly, you'd have to write the loop itself, and have your own explicit if statement, and those kinds of things. Since learning F#, I've realised I've found it easier to code in the functional way, where if you want to filter, you write "filter", and if you want to map, you write "map", instead of implementing each of the details.
I also love the |> operator, which I think separates F# from ocaml, and possibly other functional languages. It's the pipe operator, it lets you "pipe" the output of one expression into the input of another expression. It makes the code follow how I think more. Like in the code snippet above, that's saying, "take the factors sequence, filter it, then map it." It's a very high level of thinking, which you don't get in an imperative programming language because you're so busy writing the loop and if statements. It's the one thing I miss the most whenever I go into another language.
So just in general, even though I can program in both C# and F#, I find it easier to use F# because you can think at a higher level. I would argue that because the smaller details are removed from functional programming (in F# at least), that I am more productive.
Edit: I saw in one of the comments that you asked for an example of "state" in a functional programming language. F# can be written imperatively, so here's a direct example of how you can have mutable state in F#:
let mutable x = 5
for i in 1..10 do
x <- x + i
Consider all the difficult bugs you've spent a long time debugging.
Now, how many of those bugs were due to "unintended interactions" between two separate components of a program? (Nearly all threading bugs have this form: races involving writing shared data, deadlocks, ... Additionally, it is common to find libraries that have some unexpected effect on global state, or read/write the registry/environment, etc.) I would posit that at least 1 in 3 'hard bugs' fall into this category.
Now if you switch to stateless/immutable/pure programming, all those bugs go away. You are presented with some new challenges instead (e.g. when you do want different modules to interact with the environment), but in a language like Haskell, those interactions get explicitly reified into the type system, which means you can just look at the type of a function and reason about the type of interactions it can have with the rest of the program.
That's the big win from 'immutability' IMO. In an ideal world, we'd all design terrific APIs and even when things were mutable, effects would be local and well-documented and 'unexpected' interactions would be kept to a minimum. In the real world, there are lots of APIs that interact with global state in myriad ways, and these are the source of the most pernicious bugs. Aspiring to statelessness is aspiring to be rid of unintended/implicit/behind-the-scenes interactions among components.
One advantage of stateless functions is that they permit precalculation or caching of the function's return values. Even some C compilers allow you to explicitly mark functions as stateless to improve their optimisability. As many others have noted, stateless functions are much easier to parallelise.
But efficiency is not the only concern. A pure function is easier to test and debug since anything that affects it is explicitly stated. And when programming in a functional language, one gets in the habit of making as few functions "dirty" (with I/O, etc.) as possible. Separating out the stateful stuff this way is a good way to design programs, even in not-so-functional languages.
Functional languages can take a while to "get", and it's difficult to explain to someone who hasn't gone through that process. But most people who persist long enough finally realise that the fuss is worth it, even if they don't end up using functional languages much.
Without state, it is very easy to automatically parallelize your code (as CPUs are made with more and more cores this is very important).
Stateless web applications are essential when you start having higher traffic.
There could be plenty of user data that you don't want to store on the client side for security reasons for example. In this case you need to store it server-side. You could use the web applications default session but if you have more than one instance of the application you will need to make sure that each user is always directed to the same instance.
Load balancers often have the ability to have 'sticky sessions' where the load balancer some how knows which server to send the users request to. This is not ideal though, for example it means every time you restart your web application, all connected users will lose their session.
A better approach is to store the session behind the web servers in some sort of data store, these days there are loads of great nosql products available for this (redis, mongo, elasticsearch, memcached). This way the web servers are stateless but you still have state server-side and the availability of this state can be managed by choosing the right datastore setup. These data stores usually have great redundancy so it should almost always be possible to make changes to your web application and even the data store without impacting the users.
My understanding is that FP also has a huge impact on testing. Not having a mutable state will often force you to supply more data to a function than you would have to for a class. There's tradeoffs, but think about how easy it would be to test a function that is "incrementNumberByN" rather than a "Counter" class.
Object
describe("counter", () => {
it("should increment the count by one when 'increment' invoked without
argument", () => {
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment()
expect(counter.count).toBe(1)
})
it("should increment the count by n when 'increment' invoked with
argument", () => {
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment(2)
expect(counter.count).toBe(2)
})
})
functional
describe("incrementNumberBy(startingNumber, increment)", () => {
it("should increment by 1 if n not supplied"){
expect(incrementNumberBy(0)).toBe(1)
}
it("should increment by 1 if n = 1 supplied"){
expect(countBy(0, 1)).toBe(1)
}
})
Since the function has no state and the data going in is more explicit, there are fewer things to focus on when you are trying to figure out why a test might be failing. On the tests for the counter we had to do
const counter = new Counter(0)
counter.increment()
expect(counter.count).toBe(1)
Both of the first two lines contribute to the value of counter.count. In a simple example like this 1 vs 2 lines of potentially problematic code isn't a big deal, but when you deal with a more complex object you might be adding a ton of complexity to your testing as well.
In contrast, when you write a project in a functional language, it nudges you towards keeping fancy algorithms dependent on the data flowing in and out of a particular function, rather than being dependent on the state of your system.
Another way of looking at it would be illustrating the mindset for testing a system in each paradigm.
For Functional Programming: Make sure function A works for given inputs, you make sure function B works with given inputs, make sure C works with given inputs.
For OOP: Make sure Object A's method works given an input argument of X after doing Y and Z to the state of the object. Make sure Object B's method works given an input argument of X after doing W and Y to the state of the object.
The advantages of stateless programming coincide with those goto-free programming, only more so.
Though many descriptions of functional programming emphasize the lack of mutation, the lack of mutation also goes hand in hand with the lack of unconditional control transfers, such as loops. In functional programming languages, recursion, in particularly tail recursion, replaces looping. Recursion eliminates both the unconditional control construct and the mutation of variables in the same stroke. The recursive call binds argument values to parameters, rather than assigning values.
To understand why this is advantageous, rather than turning to functional programming literature, we can consult the 1968 paper by Dijkstra, "Go To Statement Considered Harmful":
"The unbridled use of the go to statement has an immediate consequence that it becomes terribly hard to find a meaningful set of coordinates in which to describe the process progress."
Dijkstra's observations, however still apply to structured programs which avoid go to, because statements like while, if and whatnot are just window dressing on go to! Without using go to, we can still find it impossible to find the coordinates in which to describe the process progress. Dijkstra neglected to observe that bridled go to still has all the same issues.
What this means is that at any given point in the execution of the program, it is not clear how we got there. When we run into a bug, we have to use backwards reasoning: how did we end up in this state? How did we branch into this point of the code? Often it is hard to follow: the trail goes back a few steps and then runs cold due to a vastness of possibilities.
Functional programming gives us the absolute coordinates. We can rely on analytical tools like mathematical induction to understand how the program arrived into a certain situation.
For example, to convince ourselves that a recursive function is correct, we can just verify its base cases, and then understand and check its inductive hypothesis.
If the logic is written as a loop with mutating variables, we need a more complicated set of tools: breaking down the logic into steps with pre- and post-conditions, which we rewrite in terms mathematics that refers to the prior and current values of variables and such. Yes, if the program uses only certain control structures, avoiding go to, then the analysis is somewhat easier. The tools are tailored to the structures: we have a recipe for how we analyze the correctness of an if, while, and other structures.
However, by contrast, in a functional program there is no prior value of any variable to reason about; that whole class of problem has gone away.
Haskel and Prolog are good examples of languages which may be implemented as stateless programming languages. But unfortunately they are not so far. Both Prolog and Haskel have imperative implementations currently. See some SMT's, seem closer to stateless coding.
This is why you are having hard time seeing any benefits from these programing languages. Due to imperative implementations we have no performance and stability benefits. So the lack of stateless languages infrastructure is the main reason you feel no any stateless programming language due to its absence.
These are some benefits of pure stateless:
Task description is the program (compact code)
Stability due to absense of state-dependant bugs (the most of bugs)
Cachable results (a set of inputs always cause same set of outputs)
Distributable computations
Rebaseable to quantum computations
Thin code for multiple overlapping clauses
Allows differentiable programming optimizations
Consistently applying code changes (adding logic breaks nothing written)
Optimized combinatorics (no need to bruteforce enumerations)
Stateless coding is about concentrating on relations between data which then used for computing by deducing it. Basically this is the next level of programming abstraction. It is much closer to native language then any imperative programming languages because it allow describing relations instead of state change sequences.
I have been doing object-oriented programming for a few years now, and I have not done much functional programming. I have an interest in flight simulators, and am curious about the functional programming aspect of Lisp. Flight simulators or any other real world simulator makes sense to me in an object-oriented paradigm.
Here are my questions:
Is object oriented the best way to represent a real world simulation domain?
I know that Common Lisp has CLOS (OO for lisp), but my question is really about writing a flight simulator in a functional language. So if you were going to write it in Lisp, would you choose to use CLOS or write it in a functional manner?
Does anyone have any thoughts on coding a flight simulator in lisp or any functional language?
UPDATE 11/8/12 - A similar SO question for those interested -> How does functional programming apply to simulations?
It's a common mistake to think of "Lisp" as a functional language. Really it is best thought of as a family of languages, probably, but these days when people say Lisp they usually mean Common Lisp.
Common Lisp allows functional programming, but it isn't a functional language per se. Rather it is a general purpose language. Scheme is a much smaller variant, that is more functional in orientation, and of course there are others.
As for your question is it a good choice? That really depends on your plans. Common Lisp particularly has some real strengths for this sort of thing. It's both interactive and introspective at a level you usually see in so-called scripting languages, making it very quick to develop in. At the same time its compiled and has efficient compilers, so you can expect performance in the same ballpark as other efficient compilers (with a factor of two of c is typical ime). While a large language, it has a much more consistent design than things like c++, and the metaprogramming capabilities can make very clean, easy to understand code for your particular application. If you only look at these aspects
common lisp looks amazing.
However, there are downsides. The community is small, you won't find many people to help if that's what you're looking for. While the built in library is large, you won't find as many 3rd party libraries, so you may end up writing more of it from scratch. Finally, while it's by no means a walled garden, CL doesn't have the kind of smooth integration with foreign libraries that say python does. Which doesn't mean you can't call c code, there are nice tools for this.
By they way, CLOS is about the most powerful OO system I can think of, but it is quite a different approach if you're coming from a mainstream c++/java/c#/etc. OO background (yes, they differ, but beyond single vs. multiple inh. not that much) you may find it a bit strange at first, almost turned inside out.
If you go this route, you are going to have to watch for some issues with performance of the actual rendering pipeline, if you write that yourself with CLOS. The class system has incredible runtime flexibility (i.e. updating class definitions at runtime not via monkey patching etc. but via actually changing the class and updating instances) however you pay some dispatch cost on this.
For what it's worth, I've used CL in the past for research code requiring numerical efficiency, i.e. simulations of a different sort. It works well for me. In that case I wasn't worried about using existing code -- it didn't exist, so I was writing pretty much everything from scratch anyway.
In summary, it could be a fine choice of language for this project, but not the only one. If you don't use a language with both high-level aspects and good performance (like CL has, as does OCaml, and a few others) I would definitely look at the possibility of a two level approach with a language like lua or perhaps python (lots of libs) on top of some c or c++ code doing the heavy lifting.
If you look at the game or simulator industry you find a lot of C++ plus maybe some added scripting component. There can also be tools written in other languages for scenery design or related tasks. But there is only very little Lisp used in that domain. You need to be a good hacker to get the necessary performance out of Lisp and to be able to access or write the low-level code. How do you get this knowhow? Try, fail, learn, try, fail less, learn, ... There is nothing but writing code and experimenting with it. Lisp is really useful for good software engineers or those that have the potential to be a good software engineer.
One of the main obstacles is the garbage collector. Either you have a very simple one (then you have a performance problem with random pauses) or you have a sophisticated one (then you have a problem getting it working right). Only few garbage collectors exist that would be suitable - most Lisp implementations have good GC implementations, but still those are not tuned for real-time or near real-time use. Exceptions do exist. With C++ you can forget the GC, because there usually is none.
The other alternative to automatic memory management with a garbage collector is to use no GC and manage memory 'manually'. This is used by some (even commercial) Lisp applications that need to support some real-time response (for example process control expert systems).
The nearest thing that was developed in that area was the Crash Bandicoot (and also later games) game for the Playstation I (later games were for the Playstation II) from Naughty Dog. Since they have been bought by Sony, they switched to C++ for the Playstation III. Their development environment was written in Allegro Common Lisp and it included a compiler for a Scheme (a Lisp dialect) variant. On the development system the code gets compiled and then downloaded to the Playstation during development. They had their own 3d engine (very impressive, always got excellent reviews from game magazines), incremental level loading, complex behaviour control for lots of different actors, etc. So the Playstation was really executing the Scheme code, but memory management was not done via GC (afaik). They had to develop all the technology on their own - nobody was offering Lisp-based tools - but they could, because their were excellent software developers. Since then I haven't heard of a similar project. Note that this was not just Lisp for scripting - it was Lisp all the way down.
One the Scheme side there is also a new interesting implementation called Ypsilon Scheme. It is developed for a pinball game - this could be the base for other games, too.
On the Common Lisp side, there have been Lisp applications talking to flight simulators and controlling aspects of them. There are some game libraries that are based on SDL. There are interfaces to OpenGL. There is also something like the 'Open Agent Engine'. There are also some 3d graphics applications written in Common Lisp - even some complex ones. But in the area of flight simulation there is very little prior art.
On the topic of CLOS vs. Functional Programming. Probably one would use neither. If you need to squeeze all possible performance out of a system, then CLOS already has some overheads that one might want to avoid.
Take a look at Functional Reactive Programming. There are a number of frameworks for this in Haskell (don't know about other languages), most of which are based around arrows. The basic idea is to represent relationships between time-varying values and events. So for example you would write (in Haskell arrow notation using no particular library):
velocity <- {some expression of airspeed, heading, gravity etc.}
position <- integrate <- velocity
The second line declares the relationship between position and velocity. The <- arrow operators are syntactic sugar for a bunch of library calls that tie everything together.
Then later on you might say something like:
groundLevel <- getGroundLevel <- position
altitude <- getAltitude <- position
crashed <- liftA2 (<) altitude groundLevel
to declare that if your altitude is less than the ground level at your position then you have crashed. Just as with the other variables here, "crashed" is not just a single value, its a time-varying stream of values. That is why the "liftA2" function is used to "lift" the comparison operator from simple values to streams.
IO is not a problem in this paradigm. Inputs are time varying values such as joystick X and Y, while the image on the screen is simply another time varying value. At the very top level your entire simulator is an arrow from the inputs to the outputs. Then you call a "run" function that converts the arrow into an IO action that runs the game.
If you write this in Lisp you will probably find yourself creating a bunch of macros that basically re-invent arrows, so it might be worth just finding out about arrows to start with.
I don't know anything about flight sims, and you haven't listed anything in particular they consist of, so this is mostly a guess about writing a FS in Lisp.
Why not:
Lisp excels at exploratory programming. I think that since FSs been around so long, and there are free and open-source examples, that it would not benefit as much from this type of programming.
Flight sims are mostly (I'm guessing) written in static, natively compiled languages. If you're looking for pure runtime performance, in Lisp this tends to mean type declarations and other not-so-Lispy constructs. If you don't get the performance you want with naive approaches, your optimized-Lisp might end up looking a lot like C, and Lisp isn't as good at C at writing C.
A lot of a FS, I'm guessing, is interfacing to a graphics library like OpenGL, which is written in C. Depending on how your FFI / OpenGL bindings are, this might, again, make your code look like C-in-Lisp. You might not have the big win that Lisp does in, say, a web app (which consists of generating a tree structure of plain text, which Lisp is great at).
Why:
I took a glance at the FlightGear source code, and I see a lot of structural boilerplate -- even a straight port might end up being half the size.
They use strings for keys all over the place (C++ doesn't have symbols). They use XML for semi-human-readable config files (C++ doesn't have a runtime reader). Simply switching to native Lisp constructs here could be big win for minimal effort.
Nothing looks at all complex, even the "AI". It's simply a matter of keeping everything organized, and Lisp will be great at this because it'll be a lot shorter.
But the neat thing about Lisp is that it's multi-paradigm. You can use OO for organizing the "objects", and FP for computation within each object. I say just start writing and see where it takes you.
I would first think of the nature of the simulation.
Some simulations require interaction like a flight simulator. I don't think functional programming may be a good choice for an interactive (read: CPU intensive/response-critical) applicaiton. Of course, if you have access to 8 PS3's wired together with Linux, you'll not care too much about performance.
For simulations like evolutionary/genetic programming where you set it up and let 'er rip, a functioonal lauguage may help model the problem domain better than an OO language. Not that I'm an expert in functional programming but the ease of coding recursion and the idea of lazy evaluation common in functional languages seems to me a good fit for the 'let her rip' sort of sims.
I wouldn't say functional programming lends itself particularly well to flight simulation. In general, functional languages can be very useful for writing scientific simulations, though this is a slightly specialised case. Really, you'd probably be better off with a standard imperative (preferably OOP) language like C++/C#/Java, as they would tend to have the better physics libraries as well as graphics APIs, both of which you would need to use very heavily. Also, the OOP approach might make it easier to represent your environment. Another point to consider is that (as far as I know) the popular flight simulators on the market today are written pretty much entirely in C++.
Essentially, my philosophy is that if there's no particularly good reason that you should need to use functional paradigms, then don't use a functional language (though there's nothing to stop you using functional constructs in OOP/mixed languages). I suspect you're going to have a lot less painful of a development process using the well-tested APIs for C++ and languages more commonly associated with game development (which has many commonalities with flight sim). Now, if you want to add some complex AI to the simulator, Lisp might seem like a rather more obvious choice, though even then I wouldn't at all jump for it. And finally, if you're really keen on using a functional language, I would recommend you go with one of the more general purpose ones like Python or even F# (both mixed imperative-functional languages really), as opposed to Lisp, which could end up getting rather ugly for such a project.
There are a few problems with functional languages, and that is they don't mesh well with state, but they do go well with process. So in a way it could be said they are action oriented. This means you'll be wasting your time simulating a plane, what you want to do is simulate the actions of flying a plane. Once you grim that you can probably get it to work.
Now as side point, haskell wouldn't be good IMHO, because it's too abstract for a "game", this sort of app is all about Input/Output, but Haskell is about avoiding IO, so it'll become a monad nightmare, and you'll be working against the language. Lisp is a better choice, or Lua or Javascript, they are also functional, but not purely functional, so for your case try Lisp. Anyways in any of these languages your graphics will be C or C++.
A serious issue however is there is very little documentation, and less tutorials about Functional languages and "games", of course scientific simulations is academically documented but those papers are quite dense, if you succeed maybe you could write you experiences, for others as it's a rather empty field right now