Related
I am very new to c++ and confused between what is the difference between modular programming and function oriented programming.I have never done modular programming so I just know modules by definition that it contains functions.So what is the difference between a sequential(function-oriented language)and modular programming?Thanks in advance.
EDIT:
I was reading about C++'s OOP.It started something like what is unstructured programming, than gave a basic idea about structured programming, than modular programming and finally,OOP.
Modular programming is mostly a strategy to reduce coupling in a computer program, mostly by means of encapsulation.
Before modular programming, local coherence of the code was ensured by structured programming, but global coherence was lacking: if you decided that your spell-checking dictionary would be implemented as a red-black tree, then this implementation would be exposed to everyone else in the program, so that the programmer working on, say, text rendering, would be able to access the red-black tree nodes to do meaningful things with them.
Of course, this became hell once you needed to change the implementation of your dictionary, because then you would have to fix the code of other programmers as well.
Even worse, if the implementation detail involved global variables, then you had to be exceedingly careful of who changed them and in what order, or strange bugs would crop up.
Modular programming applied encapsulation to all of this, by separating the implementation (private to the module) from the interface (what the rest of the program can use). So, a dictionary module could expose an abstract type that would only be accessible through module functions such as findWord(word,dictionary). Someone working on the dictionary module would never need to peek outside that module to check if someone might be using an implementation detail.
They are both ways of structuring your code. If your interested in function-oriented programming and want to understand it a bit better, I'd take a look at lisp. C++ isn't truly function oriented as every function should return a value yet C++ functions can return void (making it a procedure rather than a function), so it's not a true functional programming language in the sense.
"I have never done modular programming so I just know modules by definition that it contains functions".
Modules are a level higher than functions.
That's a good start. Think of a function as a unit of work that does something and when you have several functions that you can group in a certain way, you put them in a module. So, string.h has a bunch of functions for working with strings, but you simply include the header and you have access to all those functions directly. You can then reuse those modules in other projects as you'd already used the modules previously and they've been (I assume) debugged and tested and stop people from reinventing the wheel. The whole point is to benefit from the cumulative experience.
I'd suggest you think of a project you'd like and write some functions and think about how you'd like to organize the code for another developer to use.
Hope this is of some use to you.
I believe functional programming leads us to micro services paradigm as for now while modular programming tends to similar to OOP concept.
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 6 years ago.
Improve this question
Software Engineering as it is taught today is entirely focused on object-oriented programming and the 'natural' object-oriented view of the world. There is a detailed methodology that describes how to transform a domain model into a class model with several steps and a lot of (UML) artifacts like use-case-diagrams or class-diagrams. Many programmers have internalized this approach and have a good idea about how to design an object-oriented application from scratch.
The new hype is functional programming, which is taught in many books and tutorials. But what about functional software engineering?
While reading about Lisp and Clojure, I came about two interesting statements:
Functional programs are often developed bottom up instead of top down ('On Lisp', Paul Graham)
Functional Programmers use Maps where OO-Programmers use objects/classes ('Clojure for Java Programmers', talk by Rich Hickley).
So what is the methodology for a systematic (model-based ?) design of a functional application, i.e. in Lisp or Clojure? What are the common steps, what artifacts do I use, how do I map them from the problem space to the solution space?
Thank God that the software-engineering people have not yet discovered functional programming. Here are some parallels:
Many OO "design patterns" are captured as higher-order functions. For example, the Visitor pattern is known in the functional world as a "fold" (or if you are a pointy-headed theorist, a "catamorphism"). In functional languages, data types are mostly trees or tuples, and every tree type has a natural catamorphism associated with it.
These higher-order functions often come with certain laws of programming, aka "free theorems".
Functional programmers use diagrams much less heavily than OO programmers. Much of what is expressed in OO diagrams is instead expressed in types, or in "signatures", which you should think of as "module types". Haskell also has "type classes", which is a bit like an interface type.
Those functional programmers who use types generally think that "once you get the types right; the code practically writes itself."
Not all functional languages use explicit types, but the How To Design Programs book, an excellent book for learning Scheme/Lisp/Clojure, relies heavily on "data descriptions", which are closely related to types.
So what is the methodology for a systematic (model-based ?) design of a functional application, i.e. in Lisp or Clojure?
Any design method based on data abstraction works well. I happen to think that this is easier when the language has explicit types, but it works even without. A good book about design methods for abstract data types, which is easily adapted to functional programming, is Abstraction and Specification in Program Development by Barbara Liskov and John Guttag, the first edition. Liskov won the Turing award in part for that work.
Another design methodology that is unique to Lisp is to decide what language extensions would be useful in the problem domain in which you are working, and then use hygienic macros to add these constructs to your language. A good place to read about this kind of design is Matthew Flatt's article Creating Languages in Racket. The article may be behind a paywall. You can also find more general material on this kind of design by searching for the term "domain-specific embedded language"; for particular advice and examples beyond what Matthew Flatt covers, I would probably start with Graham's On Lisp or perhaps ANSI Common Lisp.
What are the common steps, what artifacts do I use?
Common steps:
Identify the data in your program and the operations on it, and define an abstract data type representing this data.
Identify common actions or patterns of computation, and express them as higher-order functions or macros. Expect to take this step as part of refactoring.
If you're using a typed functional language, use the type checker early and often. If you're using Lisp or Clojure, the best practice is to write function contracts first including unit tests—it's test-driven development to the max. And you will want to use whatever version of QuickCheck has been ported to your platform, which in your case looks like it's called ClojureCheck. It's an extremely powerful library for constructing random tests of code that uses higher-order functions.
For Clojure, I recommend going back to good old relational modeling. Out of the Tarpit is an inspirational read.
Personally I find that all the usual good practices from OO development apply in functional programming as well - just with a few minor tweaks to take account of the functional worldview. From a methodology perspective, you don't really need to do anything fundamentally different.
My experience comes from having moved from Java to Clojure in recent years.
Some examples:
Understand your business domain / data model - equally important whether you are going to design an object model or create a functional data structure with nested maps. In some ways, FP can be easier because it encourages you to think about data model separately from functions / processes but you still have to do both.
Service orientation in design - actually works very well from a FP perspective, since a typical service is really just a function with some side effects. I think that the "bottom up" view of software development sometimes espoused in the Lisp world is actually just good service-oriented API design principles in another guise.
Test Driven Development - works well in FP languages, in fact sometimes even better because pure functions lend themselves extremely well to writing clear, repeatable tests without any need for setting up a stateful environment. You might also want to build separate tests to check data integrity (e.g. does this map have all the keys in it that I expect, to balance the fact that in an OO language the class definition would enforce this for you at compile time).
Prototying / iteration - works just as well with FP. You might even be able to prototype live with users if you get very extremely good at building tools / DSL and using them at the REPL.
OO programming tightly couples data with behavior. Functional programming separates the two. So you don't have class diagrams, but you do have data structures, and you particularly have algebraic data types. Those types can be written to very tightly match your domain, including eliminating impossible values by construction.
So there aren't books and books on it, but there is a well established approach to, as the saying goes, make impossible values unrepresentable.
In so doing, you can make a range of choices about representing certain types of data as functions instead, and conversely, representing certain functions as a union of data types instead so that you can get, e.g., serialization, tighter specification, optimization, etc.
Then, given that, you write functions over your adts such that you establish some sort of algebra -- i.e. there are fixed laws which hold for these functions. Some are maybe idempotent -- the same after multiple applications. Some are associative. Some are transitive, etc.
Now you have a domain over which you have functions which compose according to well behaved laws. A simple embedded DSL!
Oh, and given properties, you can of course write automated randomized tests of them (ala QuickCheck).. and that's just the beginning.
Object Oriented design isn't the same thing as software engineering. Software engineering has to do with the entire process of how we go from requirements to a working system, on time and with a low defect rate. Functional programming may be different from OO, but it does not do away with requirements, high level and detailed designs, verification and testing, software metrics, estimation, and all that other "software engineering stuff".
Furthermore, functional programs do exhibit modularity and other structure. Your detailed designs have to be expressed in terms of the concepts in that structure.
One approach is to create an internal DSL within the functional programming language of choice. The "model" then is a set of business rules expressed in the DSL.
See my answer to another post:
How does Clojure aproach Separation of Concerns?
I agree more needs to be written on the subject on how to structure large applications that use an FP approach (Plus more needs to be done to document FP-driven UIs)
While this might be considered naive and simplistic, I think "design recipes" (a systematic approach to problem solving applied to programming as advocated by Felleisen et al. in their book HtDP) would be close to what you seem to be looking for.
Here, a few links:
http://www.northeastern.edu/magazine/0301/programming.html
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.86.8371
I've recently found this book:
Functional and Reactive Domain Modeling
I think is perfectly in line with your question.
From the book description:
Functional and Reactive Domain Modeling teaches you how to think of the domain model in terms of pure functions and how to compose them to build larger abstractions. You will start with the basics of functional programming and gradually progress to the advanced concepts and patterns that you need to know to implement complex domain models. The book demonstrates how advanced FP patterns like algebraic data types, typeclass based design, and isolation of side-effects can make your model compose for readability and verifiability.
There is the "program calculation" / "design by calculation" style associated with Prof. Richard Bird and the Algebra of Programming group at Oxford University (UK), I don't think its too far-fetched to consider this a methodology.
Personally while I like the work produced by the AoP group, I don't have the discipline to practice design in this way myself. However that's my shortcoming, and not one of program calculation.
I've found Behavior Driven Development to be a natural fit for rapidly developing code in both Clojure and SBCL. The real upside of leveraging BDD with a functional language is that I tend to write much finer grain unit tests than I usually do when using procedural languages because I do a much better job of decomposing the problem into smaller chunks of functionality.
Honestly if you want design recipes for functional programs, take a look at the standard function libraries such as Haskell's Prelude. In FP, patterns are usually captured by higher order procedures (functions that operate on functions) themselves. So if a pattern is seen, often a higher order function is simply created to capture that pattern.
A good example is fmap. This function takes a function as an argument and applies it to all the "elements" of the second argument. Since it is part of the Functor type class, any instance of a Functor (such as a list, graph, etc...) may be passed as a second argument to this function. It captures the general behavior of applying a function to every element of its second argument.
Well,
Generally many Functional Programming Languages are used at universities for a long time for "small toy problems".
They are getting more popular now since OOP has difficulties with "paralel programming" because of "state".And sometime functional style is better for problem at hand like Google MapReduce.
I am sure that, when functioanl guys hit the wall [ try to implement systems bigger than 1.000.000 lines of code], some of them will come with new software-engineering methodologies with buzz words :-). They should answer the old question: How to divide system into pieces so that we can "bite" each pieces one at a time? [ work iterative, inceremental en evolutionary way] using Functional Style.
It is sure that Functional Style will effect our Object Oriented
Style.We "still" many concepts from Functional Systems and adapted to
our OOP languages.
But will functional programs will be used for such a big systems?Will they become main stream? That is the question.
And Nobody can come with realistic methodology without implementing such a big systems, making his-her hands dirty.
First you should make your hands dirty then suggest solution. Solutions-Suggestions without "real pains and dirt" will be "fantasy".
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 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
Suppose I want to implement an interpreter for a functional language. I would like to understand the issues involved in doing so and suitable literature that is available. This is a new language that is in early design stages, that is why the question is broad in scope.
For the purpose of this discussion we can assume that the purpose of the language is not important and that its functional features can be changed (even drastically) if it makes a significant difference in the ease of writing an interpreter.
The MIT website has an online copy of Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs as well as videos of the MIT 6.001 lectures using Scheme, recorded at HP in 1986. These form a great introduction to language design.
I would highly recommend Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs (SICP) as a starting point. This book will introduce the idea of what it means to write an interpreter (and a compiler), and is generally a must-read for anybody designing languages.
Implementing an interpreter for a functional language isn't likely to be too much different from implementing an interpreter for any other general purpose language. There's lexical analysis, parsing, AST construction, semantic analysis, plus execution (for a pure interpreter) or code generation and optimisation (for a compiler, even compiling to bytecode like Java/Perl/Python). SICP will introduce the difference between "applicative order" and "normal order" evaluation, which may be important for you in a pure functional context.
For just about any language interpreter or compiler, the main issues are the same, I think.
You need to decide certain basic characteristics of the language (semantics, not syntax), and the bulk of the design of the thing follows from that.
For example, does your language have
a type system? If so, what sorts of
types does it have? Is it going to be
statically typed, dynamically typed,
duck-typed?
What sort of expressions are you
planning to support? Do you need to
define an order of operations? Will
you even have operators?
What will you use as the run-time
representation of the program? Will
you convert the text to a byte-code
representation, or an AST, or a
tokenized form of the source text?
There are toolkits available to help take some of the tedium out of the actual parsing of text (ANTLR and Bison, to name two), but I don't know of anything that helps with the actual interpretation part of the task. I'm sure somebody will suggest something.
The main issue is having a semantics for the language you're implementing -- with that, the implementation becomes straightforward. Otherwise, this question is incredibly broad and hard to answer.
I'd recommend Essentials of Programming Languages as a good complement to SICP, particularly if you're interested in interpreters: Official EOPL site. You may want to check out the third edition-- the site hasn't been updated for it yet.
Edit: spam prevention is making me choose between links, so the official page is now unheated. It's easily Google-able, though.