Related
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 10 days ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I've read the Wikipedia articles for both procedural programming and functional programming, but I'm still slightly confused. Could someone boil it down to the core?
A functional language (ideally) allows you to write a mathematical function, i.e. a function that takes n arguments and returns a value. If the program is executed, this function is logically evaluated as needed.1
A procedural language, on the other hand, performs a series of sequential steps. (There's a way of transforming sequential logic into functional logic called continuation passing style.)
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input, and the order of evaluation is not well-defined; which means that uncertain values like user input or random values are hard to model in purely functional languages.
1 As everything else in this answer, that’s a generalisation. This property, evaluating a computation when its result is needed rather than sequentially where it’s called, is known as “laziness”. Not all functional languages are actually universally lazy, nor is laziness restricted to functional programming. Rather, the description given here provides a “mental framework” to think about different programming styles that are not distinct and opposite categories but rather fluid ideas.
Basically the two styles, are like Yin and Yang. One is organized, while the other chaotic. There are situations when Functional programming is the obvious choice, and other situations were Procedural programming is the better choice. This is why there are at least two languages that have recently come out with a new version, that embraces both programming styles. ( Perl 6 and D 2 )
#Procedural:#
The output of a routine does not always have a direct correlation with the input.
Everything is done in a specific order.
Execution of a routine may have side effects.
Tends to emphasize implementing solutions in a linear fashion.
##Perl 6 ##
sub factorial ( UInt:D $n is copy ) returns UInt {
# modify "outside" state
state $call-count++;
# in this case it is rather pointless as
# it can't even be accessed from outside
my $result = 1;
loop ( ; $n > 0 ; $n-- ){
$result *= $n;
}
return $result;
}
##D 2##
int factorial( int n ){
int result = 1;
for( ; n > 0 ; n-- ){
result *= n;
}
return result;
}
#Functional:#
Often recursive.
Always returns the same output for a given input.
Order of evaluation is usually undefined.
Must be stateless. i.e. No operation can have side effects.
Good fit for parallel execution
Tends to emphasize a divide and conquer approach.
May have the feature of Lazy Evaluation.
##Haskell##
( copied from Wikipedia );
fac :: Integer -> Integer
fac 0 = 1
fac n | n > 0 = n * fac (n-1)
or in one line:
fac n = if n > 0 then n * fac (n-1) else 1
##Perl 6 ##
proto sub factorial ( UInt:D $n ) returns UInt {*}
multi sub factorial ( 0 ) { 1 }
multi sub factorial ( $n ) { $n * samewith $n-1 } # { $n * factorial $n-1 }
##D 2##
pure int factorial( invariant int n ){
if( n <= 1 ){
return 1;
}else{
return n * factorial( n-1 );
}
}
#Side note:#
Factorial is actually a common example to show how easy it is to create new operators in Perl 6 the same way you would create a subroutine. This feature is so ingrained into Perl 6 that most operators in the Rakudo implementation are defined this way. It also allows you to add your own multi candidates to existing operators.
sub postfix:< ! > ( UInt:D $n --> UInt )
is tighter(&infix:<*>)
{ [*] 2 .. $n }
say 5!; # 120
This example also shows range creation (2..$n) and the list reduction meta-operator ([ OPERATOR ] LIST) combined with the numeric infix multiplication operator. (*)
It also shows that you can put --> UInt in the signature instead of returns UInt after it.
( You can get away with starting the range with 2 as the multiply "operator" will return 1 when called without any arguments )
I've never seen this definition given elsewhere, but I think this sums up the differences given here fairly well:
Functional programming focuses on expressions
Procedural programming focuses on statements
Expressions have values. A functional program is an expression who's value is a sequence of instructions for the computer to carry out.
Statements don't have values and instead modify the state of some conceptual machine.
In a purely functional language there would be no statements, in the sense that there's no way to manipulate state (they might still have a syntactic construct named "statement", but unless it manipulates state I wouldn't call it a statement in this sense). In a purely procedural language there would be no expressions, everything would be an instruction which manipulates the state of the machine.
Haskell would be an example of a purely functional language because there is no way to manipulate state. Machine code would be an example of a purely procedural language because everything in a program is a statement which manipulates the state of the registers and memory of the machine.
The confusing part is that the vast majority of programming languages contain both expressions and statements, allowing you to mix paradigms. Languages can be classified as more functional or more procedural based on how much they encourage the use of statements vs expressions.
For example, C would be more functional than COBOL because a function call is an expression, whereas calling a sub program in COBOL is a statement (that manipulates the state of shared variables and doesn't return a value). Python would be more functional than C because it allows you to express conditional logic as an expression using short circuit evaluation (test && path1 || path2 as opposed to if statements). Scheme would be more functional than Python because everything in scheme is an expression.
You can still write in a functional style in a language which encourages the procedural paradigm and vice versa. It's just harder and/or more awkward to write in a paradigm which isn't encouraged by the language.
Funtional Programming
num = 1
def function_to_add_one(num):
num += 1
return num
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
#Final Output: 2
Procedural Programming
num = 1
def procedure_to_add_one():
global num
num += 1
return num
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
#Final Output: 6
function_to_add_one is a function
procedure_to_add_one is a procedure
Even if you run the function five times, every time it will return 2
If you run the procedure five times, at the end of fifth run it will give you 6.
DISCLAIMER: Obviously this is a hyper-simplified view of reality. This answer just gives a taste of "functions" as opposed to "procedures". Nothing more. Once you have tasted this superficial yet deeply penetrative intuition, start exploring the two paradigms, and you will start to see the difference quite clearly.
Helps my students, hope it helps you too.
In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions, in contrast with the procedural programming style that emphasizes changes in state.
I believe that procedural/functional/objective programming are about how to approach a problem.
The first style would plan everything in to steps, and solves the problem by implementing one step (a procedure) at a time. On the other hand, functional programming would emphasize the divide-and-conquer approach, where the problem is divided into sub-problem, then each sub-problem is solved (creating a function to solve that sub problem) and the results are combined to create the answer for the whole problem. Lastly, Objective programming would mimic the real world by create a mini-world inside the computer with many objects, each of which has a (somewhat) unique characteristics, and interacts with others. From those interactions the result would emerge.
Each style of programming has its own advantages and weaknesses. Hence, doing something such as "pure programming" (i.e. purely procedural - no one does this, by the way, which is kind of weird - or purely functional or purely objective) is very difficult, if not impossible, except some elementary problems specially designed to demonstrate the advantage of a programming style (hence, we call those who like pureness "weenie" :D).
Then, from those styles, we have programming languages that is designed to optimized for some each style. For example, Assembly is all about procedural. Okay, most early languages are procedural, not only Asm, like C, Pascal, (and Fortran, I heard). Then, we have all famous Java in objective school (Actually, Java and C# is also in a class called "money-oriented," but that is subject for another discussion). Also objective is Smalltalk. In functional school, we would have "nearly functional" (some considered them to be impure) Lisp family and ML family and many "purely functional" Haskell, Erlang, etc. By the way, there are many general languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby.
To expand on Konrad's comment:
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input, and the order of evaluation is not well-defined;
Because of this, functional code is generally easier to parallelize. Since there are (generally) no side effects of the functions, and they (generally) just act on their arguments, a lot of concurrency issues go away.
Functional programming is also used when you need to be capable of proving your code is correct. This is much harder to do with procedural programming (not easy with functional, but still easier).
Disclaimer: I haven't used functional programming in years, and only recently started looking at it again, so I might not be completely correct here. :)
One thing I hadn't seen really emphasized here is that modern functional languages such as Haskell really more on first class functions for flow control than explicit recursion. You don't need to define factorial recursively in Haskell, as was done above. I think something like
fac n = foldr (*) 1 [1..n]
is a perfectly idiomatic construction, and much closer in spirit to using a loop than to using explicit recursion.
A functional programming is identical to procedural programming in which global variables are not being used.
Procedural languages tend to keep track of state (using variables) and tend to execute as a sequence of steps. Purely functional languages don't keep track of state, use immutable values, and tend to execute as a series of dependencies. In many cases the status of the call stack will hold the information that would be equivalent to that which would be stored in state variables in procedural code.
Recursion is a classic example of functional style programming.
Konrad said:
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input,
and the order of evaluation is not well-defined; which means that uncertain values like
user input or random values are hard to model in purely functional languages.
The order of evaluation in a purely functional program may be hard(er) to reason about (especially with laziness) or even unimportant but I think that saying it is not well defined makes it sound like you can't tell if your program is going to work at all!
Perhaps a better explanation would be that control flow in functional programs is based on when the value of a function's arguments are needed. The Good Thing about this that in well written programs, state becomes explicit: each function lists its inputs as parameters instead of arbitrarily munging global state. So on some level, it is easier to reason about order of evaluation with respect to one function at a time. Each function can ignore the rest of the universe and focus on what it needs to do. When combined, functions are guaranteed to work the same[1] as they would in isolation.
... uncertain values like user input or random values are hard to model in purely
functional languages.
The solution to the input problem in purely functional programs is to embed an imperative language as a DSL using a sufficiently powerful abstraction. In imperative (or non-pure functional) languages this is not needed because you can "cheat" and pass state implicitly and order of evaluation is explicit (whether you like it or not). Because of this "cheating" and forced evaluation of all parameters to every function, in imperative languages 1) you lose the ability to create your own control flow mechanisms (without macros), 2) code isn't inherently thread safe and/or parallelizable by default, 3) and implementing something like undo (time travel) takes careful work (imperative programmer must store a recipe for getting the old value(s) back!), whereas pure functional programming buys you all these things—and a few more I may have forgotten—"for free".
I hope this doesn't sound like zealotry, I just wanted to add some perspective. Imperative programming and especially mixed paradigm programming in powerful languages like C# 3.0 are still totally effective ways to get things done and there is no silver bullet.
[1] ... except possibly with respect memory usage (cf. foldl and foldl' in Haskell).
To expand on Konrad's comment:
and the order of evaluation is not
well-defined
Some functional languages have what is called Lazy Evaluation. Which means a function is not executed until the value is needed. Until that time the function itself is what is passed around.
Procedural languages are step 1 step 2 step 3... if in step 2 you say add 2 + 2, it does it right then. In lazy evaluation you would say add 2 + 2, but if the result is never used, it never does the addition.
If you have a chance, I would recommand getting a copy of Lisp/Scheme, and doing some projects in it. Most of the ideas that have lately become bandwagons were expressed in Lisp decades ago: functional programming, continuations (as closures), garbage collection, even XML.
So that would be a good way to get a head start on all these current ideas, and a few more besides, like symbolic computation.
You should know what functional programming is good for, and what it isn't good for. It isn't good for everything. Some problems are best expressed in terms of side-effects, where the same question gives differet answers depending on when it is asked.
#Creighton:
In Haskell there is a library function called product:
prouduct list = foldr 1 (*) list
or simply:
product = foldr 1 (*)
so the "idiomatic" factorial
fac n = foldr 1 (*) [1..n]
would simply be
fac n = product [1..n]
Procedural programming divides sequences of statements and conditional constructs into separate blocks called procedures that are parameterized over arguments that are (non-functional) values.
Functional programming is the same except that functions are first-class values, so they can be passed as arguments to other functions and returned as results from function calls.
Note that functional programming is a generalization of procedural programming in this interpretation. However, a minority interpret "functional programming" to mean side-effect-free which is quite different but irrelevant for all major functional languages except Haskell.
None of the answers here show idiomatic functional programming. The recursive factorial answer is great for representing recursion in FP, but the majority of code is not recursive so I don't think that answer is fully representative.
Say you have an arrays of strings, and each string represents an integer like "5" or "-200". You want to check this input array of strings against your internal test case (Using integer comparison). Both solutions are shown below
Procedural
arr_equal(a : [Int], b : [Str]) -> Bool {
if(a.len != b.len) {
return false;
}
bool ret = true;
for( int i = 0; i < a.len /* Optimized with && ret*/; i++ ) {
int a_int = a[i];
int b_int = parseInt(b[i]);
ret &= a_int == b_int;
}
return ret;
}
Functional
eq = i, j => i == j # This is usually a built-in
toInt = i => parseInt(i) # Of course, parseInt === toInt here, but this is for visualization
arr_equal(a : [Int], b : [Str]) -> Bool =
zip(a, b.map(toInt)) # Combines into [Int, Int]
.map(eq)
.reduce(true, (i, j) => i && j) # Start with true, and continuously && it with each value
While pure functional languages are generally research languages (As the real-world likes free side-effects), real-world procedural languages will use the much simpler functional syntax when appropriate.
This is usually implemented with an external library like Lodash, or available built-in with newer languages like Rust. The heavy lifting of functional programming is done with functions/concepts like map, filter, reduce, currying, partial, the last three of which you can look up for further understanding.
Addendum
In order to be used in the wild, the compiler will normally have to work out how to convert the functional version into the procedural version internally, as function call overhead is too high. Recursive cases such as the factorial shown will use tricks such as tail call to remove O(n) memory usage. The fact that there are no side effects allows functional compilers to implement the && ret optimization even when the .reduce is done last. Using Lodash in JS, obviously does not allow for any optimization, so it is a hit to performance (Which isn't usually a concern with web development). Languages like Rust will optimize internally (And have functions such as try_fold to assist && ret optimization).
To Understand the difference, one needs to to understand that "the godfather" paradigm of both procedural and functional programming is the imperative programming.
Basically procedural programming is merely a way of structuring imperative programs in which the primary method of abstraction is the "procedure." (or "function" in some programming languages). Even Object Oriented Programming is just another way of structuring an imperative program, where the state is encapsulated in objects, becoming an object with a "current state," plus this object has a set of functions, methods, and other stuff that let you the programmer manipulate or update the state.
Now, in regards to functional programming, the gist in its approach is that it identifies what values to take and how these values should be transferred. (so there is no state, and no mutable data as it takes functions as first class values and pass them as parameters to other functions).
PS: understanding every programming paradigm is used for should clarify the differences between all of them.
PSS: In the end of the day, programming paradigms are just different approaches to solving problems.
PSS: this quora answer has a great explanation.
A monad is a mathematical structure which is heavily used in (pure) functional programming, basically Haskell. However, there are many other mathematical structures available, like for example applicative functors, strong monads, or monoids. Some have more specific, some are more generic. Yet, monads are much more popular. Why is that?
One explanation I came up with, is that they are a sweet spot between genericity and specificity. This means monads capture enough assumptions about the data to apply the algorithms we typically use and the data we usually have fulfills the monadic laws.
Another explanation could be that Haskell provides syntax for monads (do-notation), but not for other structures, which means Haskell programmers (and thus functional programming researchers) are intuitively drawn towards monads, where a more generic or specific (efficient) function would work as well.
I suspect that the disproportionately large attention given to this one particular type class (Monad) over the many others is mainly a historical fluke. People often associate IO with Monad, although the two are independently useful ideas (as are list reversal and bananas). Because IO is magical (having an implementation but no denotation) and Monad is often associated with IO, it's easy to fall into magical thinking about Monad.
(Aside: it's questionable whether IO even is a monad. Do the monad laws hold? What do the laws even mean for IO, i.e., what does equality mean? Note the problematic association with the state monad.)
If a type m :: * -> * has a Monad instance, you get Turing-complete composition of functions with type a -> m b. This is a fantastically useful property. You get the ability to abstract various Turing-complete control flows away from specific meanings. It's a minimal composition pattern that supports abstracting any control flow for working with types that support it.
Compare this to Applicative, for instance. There, you get only composition patterns with computational power equivalent to a push-down automaton. Of course, it's true that more types support composition with more limited power. And it's true that when you limit the power available, you can do additional optimizations. These two reasons are why the Applicative class exists and is useful. But things that can be instances of Monad usually are, so that users of the type can perform the most general operations possible with the type.
Edit:
By popular demand, here are some functions using the Monad class:
ifM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m a -> m a -> m a
ifM c x y = c >>= \z -> if z then x else y
whileM :: Monad m => (a -> m Bool) -> (a -> m a) -> a -> m a
whileM p step x = ifM (p x) (step x >>= whileM p step) (return x)
(*&&) :: Monad m => m Bool -> m Bool -> m Bool
x *&& y = ifM x y (return False)
(*||) :: Monad m => m Bool -> m Bool -> m Bool
x *|| y = ifM x (return True) y
notM :: Monad m => m Bool -> m Bool
notM x = x >>= return . not
Combining those with do syntax (or the raw >>= operator) gives you name binding, indefinite looping, and complete boolean logic. That's a well-known set of primitives sufficient to give Turing completeness. Note how all the functions have been lifted to work on monadic values, rather than simple values. All monadic effects are bound only when necessary - only the effects from the chosen branch of ifM are bound into its final value. Both *&& and *|| ignore their second argument when possible. And so on..
Now, those type signatures may not involve functions for every monadic operand, but that's just a cognitive simplification. There would be no semantic difference, ignoring bottoms, if all the non-function arguments and results were changed to () -> m a. It's just friendlier to users to optimize that cognitive overhead out.
Now, let's look at what happens to those functions with the Applicative interface.
ifA :: Applicative f => f Bool -> f a -> f a -> f a
ifA c x y = (\c' x' y' -> if c' then x' else y') <$> c <*> x <*> y
Well, uh. It got the same type signature. But there's a really big problem here already. The effects of both x and y are bound into the composed structure, regardless of which one's value is selected.
whileA :: Applicative f => (a -> f Bool) -> (a -> f a) -> a -> f a
whileA p step x = ifA (p x) (whileA p step <$> step x) (pure x)
Well, ok, that seems like it'd be ok, except for the fact that it's an infinite loop because ifA will always execute both branches... Except it's not even that close. pure x has the type f a. whileA p step <$> step x has the type f (f a). This isn't even an infinite loop. It's a compile error. Let's try again..
whileA :: Applicative f => (a -> f Bool) -> (a -> f a) -> a -> f a
whileA p step x = ifA (p x) (whileA p step <*> step x) (pure x)
Well shoot. Don't even get that far. whileA p step has the type a -> f a. If you try to use it as the first argument to <*>, it grabs the Applicative instance for the top type constructor, which is (->), not f. Yeah, this isn't gonna work either.
In fact, the only function from my Monad examples that would work with the Applicative interface is notM. That particular function works just fine with only a Functor interface, in fact. The rest? They fail.
Of course it's to be expected that you can write code using the Monad interface that you can't with the Applicative interface. It is strictly more powerful, after all. But what's interesting is what you lose. You lose the ability to compose functions that change what effects they have based on their input. That is, you lose the ability to write certain control-flow patterns that compose functions with types a -> f b.
Turing-complete composition is exactly what makes the Monad interface interesting. If it didn't allow Turing-complete composition, it would be impossible for you, the programmer, to compose together IO actions in any particular control flow that wasn't nicely prepackaged for you. It was the fact that you can use the Monad primitives to express any control flow that made the IO type a feasible way to manage the IO problem in Haskell.
Many more types than just IO have semantically valid Monad interfaces. And it happens that Haskell has the language facilities to abstract over the entire interface. Due to those factors, Monad is a valuable class to provide instances for, when possible. Doing so gets you access to all the existing abstract functionality provided for working with monadic types, regardless of what the concrete type is.
So if Haskell programmers seem to always care about Monad instances for a type, it's because it's the most generically-useful instance that can be provided.
First, I think that it is not quite true that monads are much more popular than anything else; both Functor and Monoid have many instances that are not monads. But they are both very specific; Functor provides mapping, Monoid concatenation. Applicative is the one class that I can think of that is probably underused given its considerable power, due largely to its being a relatively recent addition to the language.
But yes, monads are extremely popular. Part of that is the do notation; a lot of Monoids provide Monad instances that merely append values to a running accumulator (essentially an implicit writer). The blaze-html library is a good example. The reason, I think, is the power of the type signature (>>=) :: Monad m => m a -> (a -> m b) -> m b. While fmap and mappend are useful, what they can do is fairly narrowly constrained. bind, however, can express a wide variety of things. It is, of course, canonized in the IO monad, perhaps the best pure functional approach to IO before streams and FRP (and still useful beside them for simple tasks and defining components). But it also provides implicit state (Reader/Writer/ST), which can avoid some very tedious variable passing. The various state monads, especially, are important because they provide a guarantee that state is single threaded, allowing mutable structures in pure (non-IO) code before fusion. But bind has some more exotic uses, such as flattening nested data structures (the List and Set monads), both of which are quite useful in their place (and I usually see them used desugared, calling liftM or (>>=) explicitly, so it is not a matter of do notation). So while Functor and Monoid (and the somewhat rarer Foldable, Alternative, Traversable, and others) provide a standardized interface to a fairly straightforward function, Monad's bind is considerably more flexibility.
In short, I think that all your reasons have some role; the popularity of monads is due to a combination of historical accident (do notation and the late definition of Applicative) and their combination of power and generality (relative to functors, monoids, and the like) and understandability (relative to arrows).
Well, first let me explain what the role of monads is: Monads are very powerful, but in a certain sense: You can pretty much express anything using a monad. Haskell as a language doesn't have things like action loops, exceptions, mutation, goto, etc. Monads can be expressed within the language (so they are not special) and make all of these reachable.
There is a positive and a negative side to this: It's positive that you can express all those control structures you know from imperative programming and a whole bunch of them you don't. I have just recently developed a monad that lets you reenter a computation somewhere in the middle with a slightly changed context. That way you can run a computation, and if it fails, you just try again with slightly adjusted values. Furthermore monadic actions are first class, and that's how you build things like loops or exception handling. While while is primitive in C in Haskell it's actually just a regular function.
The negative side is that monads give you pretty much no guarantees whatsoever. They are so powerful that you are allowed to do whatever you want, to put it simply. In other words just like you know from imperative languages it can be hard to reason about code by just looking at it.
The more general abstractions are more general in the sense that they allow some concepts to be expressed which you can't express as monads. But that's only part of the story. Even for monads you can use a style known as applicative style, in which you use the applicative interface to compose your program from small isolated parts. The benefit of this is that you can reason about code by just looking at it and you can develop components without having to pay attention to the rest of your system.
What is so special about monads?
The monadic interface's main claim to fame in Haskell is its role in the replacement of the original and unwieldy dialogue-based I/O mechanism.
As for their status in a formal investigative context...it is merely an iteration of a seemingly-cyclic endeavour which is now (2021 Oct) approximately one half-century old:
During the 1960s, several researchers began work on proving things about programs. Efforts were
made to prove that:
A program was correct.
Two programs with different code computed the same answers when given the
same inputs.
One program was faster than another.
A given program would always terminate.
While these are abstract goals, they are all, really, the same as the practical goal of "getting the
program debugged".
Several difficult problems emerged from this work. One was the problem of specification: before
one can prove that a program is correct, one must specify the meaning of "correct", formally and
unambiguously. Formal systems for specifying the meaning of a program were developed, and they
looked suspiciously like programming languages.
The Anatomy of Programming Languages, Alice E. Fischer and Frances S. Grodzinsky.
(emphasis by me.)
...back when "programming languages" - apart from an intrepid few - were most definitely imperative.
Anyone for elevating this mystery to the rank of Millenium problem? Solving it would definitely advance the science of computing and the engineering of software, one way or the other...
Monads are special because of do notation, which lets you write imperative programs in a functional language. Monad is the abstraction that allows you to splice together imperative programs from smaller, reusable components (which are themselves imperative programs). Monad transformers are special because they represent enhancing an imperative language with new features.
What is the most minimal functional programming language?
It depends on what you mean by minimal.
To start with, the ancestor of functional languages is, first and foremost, mathematical logic. The computational use of certain logics came after the fact. In a sense, many mathematical systems (the cores of which are usually quite minimal) could be called functional languages. But I doubt that's what you're after!
Best known is Alonzo Church's lambda calculus, of which there are variants and descendants:
The simplest form is what's called the untyped lambda calculus; this contains nothing but lambda abstractions, with no restrictions on their use. The creation of data structures using only anonymous functions is done with what's called Church encoding and represents data by fundamental operations on it; the number 5 becomes "repeat something 5 times", and so on.
Lisp-family languages are little more than untyped lambda calculus, augmented with atomic values, cons cells, and a handful of other things. I'd suspect Scheme is the most minimalist here, as if memory serves me it was created first as a teaching language.
The original purpose of the lambda calculus, that of describing logical proofs, failed when the untyped form was shown to be inconsistent, which is a polite term for "lets you prove that false is true". (Historical trivia: the paper proving this, which was a significant thing at the time, did so by writing a logical proof that, in computational terms, went into an infinite loop.) Anyway, the use as a logic was recovered by introducing typed lambda calculus. These tend not to be directly useful as programming languages, however, particularly since being logically sound makes the language not Turing-complete.
However, similarly to how Lisps derive from untyped lambda calculus, a typed lambda calculus extended with built-in recursion, algebraic data types, and a few other things gets you the extended ML-family of languages. These tend to be pretty minimal
at heart, with syntactic constructs having straightforward translations to lambda terms in many cases. Besides the obvious ML dialects, this also includes Haskell and a few other languages. I'm not aware of any especially minimalist typed functional languages, however; such a language would likely suffer from poor usability far worse than a minimalist untyped language.
So as far as lambda calculus variants go, the pure untyped lambda calculus with no extra features is Turing-complete and about as minimal as you can get!
However, arguably more minimal is to eliminate the concept of "variables" entirely--in fact, this was originally done to simplify meta-mathematical proofs about logical systems, if memory serves me--and use only higher-order functions called combinators. Here we have:
Combinatory logic itself, as originally invented by Moses Schönfinkel and developed extensively by Haskell Curry. Each combinator is defined by a simple substitution rule, for instance Sxyz = xz(yz). The lowercase letters are used like variables in this definition, but keep in mind that combinatory logic itself doesn't use variables, or assign names to anything at all. Combinatory logic is minimal, to be sure, but not too friendly as a programming language. Best-known is the SK combinator base. S is defined as in the example above; K is Kxy = x. Those two combinators alone suffice to make it Turing-complete! This is almost frighteningly minimal.
Unlambda is a language based on SK combinators, extending it with a few extra combinators with special properties. Less minimal, but lets you write "Hello World".
Even two combinators is more than you need, though. Various one-combinator bases exist; perhaps the best known is the iota Combinator, defined as ιx = xSK, which is used in a minimalist language also called Iota
Also of some note is Lazy K, which is distinguished from Unlambda by not introducing additional combinators, having no side effects, and using lazy evaluation. Basically, it's the Haskell of the combinator-based-esoteric-language world. It supports both the SK base, as well as the iota combinator.
Which of those strikes you as most "minimal" is probably a matter of taste.
The arguably most minimal functional languages are iota and Jot, because they use only one combinator (while unlambda needs two). Here is a short explanation: http://web.archive.org/web/20061105204247/http://ling.ucsd.edu/~barker/Iota/
I'd imagine the most minimal functional "programming language" would be lambda calculus.
BrainF*ck is a simple, easy to use programming language. Here's a quick rundown.
Imagine you have a near-infinite range of boxes, each empty. Luckily, you are not alone! You can move back and forth along the line, put things in them, and take them out. Though quite basic, with enough time you can do about anything: http://www.iwriteiam.nl/Ha_bf_inter.html. Here are the commands.
+ | add one to currrent box
- | take one from current box
> | move one box to the right
< | move one box to the left
[] | loop
. | print current value
, | input current value
other stuff to look at:
P" | simplified BF
language f | newer simplified BF
http://www2.gvsu.edu/miljours/bf.html | cool BF stuff/intro
https://www.esolangs.org/wiki/Language_list | list of similar langs/variants
An esoteric programming language (a.k.a. esolang) is a programming language designed to test the boundaries of computer programming language design, as a proof of concept, as software art, as a hacking interface to another language (particularly functional programming or procedural programminglanguages), or as a joke. The use of esotericdistinguishes these languages from programming languages that working developers use to write software. Usually, an esolang's creators do not intend the language to be used for mainstream programming, although some esoteric features, such as visuospatial syntax, have inspired practical applications in the arts. Such languages are often popular among hackers and hobbyists.
I am currently looking for a programming language to write a math class in. I know that there are lots and lots of them everywhere around, but since I'm going to start studying math next semester, I thought this might be a good way to get a deeper insight in to what I've learned.
Thanks for your replys.
BTW: If you are wondering what I wanted to ask:
"Is there a strongly typed programming language which allows you to define new operators?"
Like EFraim said, Haskell makes this pretty easy:
% ghci
ghci> let a *-* b = (a*a) - (b*b)
ghci> :type (*-*)
(*-*) :: (Num a) => a -> a -> a
ghci> 4 *-* 3
7
ghci> 1.2 *-* 0.9
0.6299999999999999
ghci> (*-*) 5 3
16
ghci> :{
let gcd a b | a > b = gcd (a - b) b
| b > a = gcd a (b - a)
| otherwise = a
:}
ghci> :type gcd
gcd :: (Ord a, Num a) => a -> a -> a
ghci> gcd 3 6
3
ghci> gcd 12 11
1
ghci> 18 `gcd` 12
6
You can define new infix operators (symbols only) using an infix syntax. You can then use
them as infix operators, or enclose them in parens to use them as a normal function.
You can also use normal functions (letters, numbers, underscores and single-quotes) as operators
by enclosing them in backticks.
Well, you can redefine a fixed set of operators in many languages, like C++ or C#. Others, like F# or Scala allow you to define even new operators (even as infix ones) which might be even nicer for math-y stuff.
Maybe Haskell? Allows you to define arbitrary infix operators.
Ted Neward wrote a series of article on Scala aimed at Java developers, and he finished it off by demonstrating how to write a mathematical domain language in Scala (which, incidentally, is a statically-typed language)
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
In C++ you can define operators that work on other classes, but I don't think other primitive types like ints since they can't have instance methods. You could either make your own number class in C++ and redefine ALL the operators, including + * etc.
To make new operators on primitive types you have to turn to functional programming (it seems from the other answers). This is fine, just keep in mind that functional programming is very different from OOP. But it will be a great new challenge and functional programming is great for math as it comes from lambda calc. Learning functional programming will teach you different skills and help you greatly with math and programming in general. :D
good luck!
Eiffel allows you to define new operators.
http://dev.eiffel.com
Inasmuch as the procedure you apply to the arguments in a Lisp combination is called an “operator,” then yeah, you can define new operators till the cows come home.
Ada has support for overriding infix operators: here is the reference manual chapter.
Unfortunately you can't create your own new operators, it seems you can only override the existing ones.
type wobble is new integer range 23..89;
function "+" (A, B: wobble) return wobble is
begin
...
end "+";
Ada is not a hugely popular language, it has to be said, but as far as strong typing goes, you can't get much stronger.
EDIT:
Another language which hasn't been mentioned yet is D. It also is a strongly typed language, and supports operator overloading. Again, it doesn't support user-defined infix operators.
From http://www.digitalmars.com/d/1.0/rationale.html
Why not allow user definable operators?
These can be very useful for attaching new infix operations to various unicode symbols. The trouble is that in D, the tokens are supposed to be completely independent of the semantic analysis. User definable operators would break that.
Both ocaml and f# have infix operators. They have a special set of characters that are allowed within their syntax, but both can be used to manipulate other symbols to use any function infix (see the ocaml discussion).
I think you should probably think deeply about why you want to use this feature. It seems to me that there are much more important considerations when choosing a language.
I can only think of one possible meaning for the word "operator" in this context, which is just syntactic sugar for a function call, e.g. foo + bar would be translated as a call to a function +(a, b).
This is sometimes useful, but not often. I can think of very few instances where I have overloaded/defined an operator.
As noted in the other answers, Haskell does allow you to define new infix operators. However, a purely functional language with lazy evaluation can be a bit of a mouthful. I would probably recommend SML over Haskell, if you feel like trying on a functional language for the first time. The type system is a bit simpler, you can use side-effects and it is not lazy.
F# is also very interesting and also features units of measure, which AFAIK is unique to that language. If you have a need for the feature it can be invaluable.
Off the top of my head I can't think of any statically typed imperative languages with infix operators, but you might want to use a functional language for math programming anyway, since it is much easier to prove facts about a functional program.
You might also want to create a small DSL if syntax issues like infix operators are so important to you. Then you can write the program in whatever language you want and still specify the math in a convenient way.
What do you mean by strong typing? Do you mean static typing (where everything has a type that is known at compile time, and conversions are restricted) or strong typing (everything has a type known at run time, and conversions are restricted)?
I'd go with Common Lisp. It doesn't actually have operators (for example, adding a and b is (+ a b)), but rather functions, which can be defined freely. It has strong typing in that every object has a definite type, even if it can't be known at compile time, and conversions are restricted. It's a truly great language for exploratory programming, and it sounds like that's what you'll be doing.
Ruby does.
require 'rubygems'
require 'superators'
class Array
superator "<---" do |operand|
self << operand.reverse
end
end
["jay"] <--- "spillihp"
You can actually do what you need with C# through operator overloading.
Example:
public static Complex operator -(Complex c)
{
Complex temp = new Complex();
temp.x = -c.x;
temp.y = -c.y;
return temp;
}
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
The community reviewed whether to reopen this question 17 days ago and left it closed:
Original close reason(s) were not resolved
Improve this question
I've read the Wikipedia articles for both procedural programming and functional programming, but I'm still slightly confused. Could someone boil it down to the core?
A functional language (ideally) allows you to write a mathematical function, i.e. a function that takes n arguments and returns a value. If the program is executed, this function is logically evaluated as needed.1
A procedural language, on the other hand, performs a series of sequential steps. (There's a way of transforming sequential logic into functional logic called continuation passing style.)
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input, and the order of evaluation is not well-defined; which means that uncertain values like user input or random values are hard to model in purely functional languages.
1 As everything else in this answer, that’s a generalisation. This property, evaluating a computation when its result is needed rather than sequentially where it’s called, is known as “laziness”. Not all functional languages are actually universally lazy, nor is laziness restricted to functional programming. Rather, the description given here provides a “mental framework” to think about different programming styles that are not distinct and opposite categories but rather fluid ideas.
Basically the two styles, are like Yin and Yang. One is organized, while the other chaotic. There are situations when Functional programming is the obvious choice, and other situations were Procedural programming is the better choice. This is why there are at least two languages that have recently come out with a new version, that embraces both programming styles. ( Perl 6 and D 2 )
#Procedural:#
The output of a routine does not always have a direct correlation with the input.
Everything is done in a specific order.
Execution of a routine may have side effects.
Tends to emphasize implementing solutions in a linear fashion.
##Perl 6 ##
sub factorial ( UInt:D $n is copy ) returns UInt {
# modify "outside" state
state $call-count++;
# in this case it is rather pointless as
# it can't even be accessed from outside
my $result = 1;
loop ( ; $n > 0 ; $n-- ){
$result *= $n;
}
return $result;
}
##D 2##
int factorial( int n ){
int result = 1;
for( ; n > 0 ; n-- ){
result *= n;
}
return result;
}
#Functional:#
Often recursive.
Always returns the same output for a given input.
Order of evaluation is usually undefined.
Must be stateless. i.e. No operation can have side effects.
Good fit for parallel execution
Tends to emphasize a divide and conquer approach.
May have the feature of Lazy Evaluation.
##Haskell##
( copied from Wikipedia );
fac :: Integer -> Integer
fac 0 = 1
fac n | n > 0 = n * fac (n-1)
or in one line:
fac n = if n > 0 then n * fac (n-1) else 1
##Perl 6 ##
proto sub factorial ( UInt:D $n ) returns UInt {*}
multi sub factorial ( 0 ) { 1 }
multi sub factorial ( $n ) { $n * samewith $n-1 } # { $n * factorial $n-1 }
##D 2##
pure int factorial( invariant int n ){
if( n <= 1 ){
return 1;
}else{
return n * factorial( n-1 );
}
}
#Side note:#
Factorial is actually a common example to show how easy it is to create new operators in Perl 6 the same way you would create a subroutine. This feature is so ingrained into Perl 6 that most operators in the Rakudo implementation are defined this way. It also allows you to add your own multi candidates to existing operators.
sub postfix:< ! > ( UInt:D $n --> UInt )
is tighter(&infix:<*>)
{ [*] 2 .. $n }
say 5!; # 120
This example also shows range creation (2..$n) and the list reduction meta-operator ([ OPERATOR ] LIST) combined with the numeric infix multiplication operator. (*)
It also shows that you can put --> UInt in the signature instead of returns UInt after it.
( You can get away with starting the range with 2 as the multiply "operator" will return 1 when called without any arguments )
I've never seen this definition given elsewhere, but I think this sums up the differences given here fairly well:
Functional programming focuses on expressions
Procedural programming focuses on statements
Expressions have values. A functional program is an expression who's value is a sequence of instructions for the computer to carry out.
Statements don't have values and instead modify the state of some conceptual machine.
In a purely functional language there would be no statements, in the sense that there's no way to manipulate state (they might still have a syntactic construct named "statement", but unless it manipulates state I wouldn't call it a statement in this sense). In a purely procedural language there would be no expressions, everything would be an instruction which manipulates the state of the machine.
Haskell would be an example of a purely functional language because there is no way to manipulate state. Machine code would be an example of a purely procedural language because everything in a program is a statement which manipulates the state of the registers and memory of the machine.
The confusing part is that the vast majority of programming languages contain both expressions and statements, allowing you to mix paradigms. Languages can be classified as more functional or more procedural based on how much they encourage the use of statements vs expressions.
For example, C would be more functional than COBOL because a function call is an expression, whereas calling a sub program in COBOL is a statement (that manipulates the state of shared variables and doesn't return a value). Python would be more functional than C because it allows you to express conditional logic as an expression using short circuit evaluation (test && path1 || path2 as opposed to if statements). Scheme would be more functional than Python because everything in scheme is an expression.
You can still write in a functional style in a language which encourages the procedural paradigm and vice versa. It's just harder and/or more awkward to write in a paradigm which isn't encouraged by the language.
Funtional Programming
num = 1
def function_to_add_one(num):
num += 1
return num
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
function_to_add_one(num)
#Final Output: 2
Procedural Programming
num = 1
def procedure_to_add_one():
global num
num += 1
return num
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
procedure_to_add_one()
#Final Output: 6
function_to_add_one is a function
procedure_to_add_one is a procedure
Even if you run the function five times, every time it will return 2
If you run the procedure five times, at the end of fifth run it will give you 6.
DISCLAIMER: Obviously this is a hyper-simplified view of reality. This answer just gives a taste of "functions" as opposed to "procedures". Nothing more. Once you have tasted this superficial yet deeply penetrative intuition, start exploring the two paradigms, and you will start to see the difference quite clearly.
Helps my students, hope it helps you too.
In computer science, functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. It emphasizes the application of functions, in contrast with the procedural programming style that emphasizes changes in state.
I believe that procedural/functional/objective programming are about how to approach a problem.
The first style would plan everything in to steps, and solves the problem by implementing one step (a procedure) at a time. On the other hand, functional programming would emphasize the divide-and-conquer approach, where the problem is divided into sub-problem, then each sub-problem is solved (creating a function to solve that sub problem) and the results are combined to create the answer for the whole problem. Lastly, Objective programming would mimic the real world by create a mini-world inside the computer with many objects, each of which has a (somewhat) unique characteristics, and interacts with others. From those interactions the result would emerge.
Each style of programming has its own advantages and weaknesses. Hence, doing something such as "pure programming" (i.e. purely procedural - no one does this, by the way, which is kind of weird - or purely functional or purely objective) is very difficult, if not impossible, except some elementary problems specially designed to demonstrate the advantage of a programming style (hence, we call those who like pureness "weenie" :D).
Then, from those styles, we have programming languages that is designed to optimized for some each style. For example, Assembly is all about procedural. Okay, most early languages are procedural, not only Asm, like C, Pascal, (and Fortran, I heard). Then, we have all famous Java in objective school (Actually, Java and C# is also in a class called "money-oriented," but that is subject for another discussion). Also objective is Smalltalk. In functional school, we would have "nearly functional" (some considered them to be impure) Lisp family and ML family and many "purely functional" Haskell, Erlang, etc. By the way, there are many general languages such as Perl, Python, Ruby.
To expand on Konrad's comment:
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input, and the order of evaluation is not well-defined;
Because of this, functional code is generally easier to parallelize. Since there are (generally) no side effects of the functions, and they (generally) just act on their arguments, a lot of concurrency issues go away.
Functional programming is also used when you need to be capable of proving your code is correct. This is much harder to do with procedural programming (not easy with functional, but still easier).
Disclaimer: I haven't used functional programming in years, and only recently started looking at it again, so I might not be completely correct here. :)
One thing I hadn't seen really emphasized here is that modern functional languages such as Haskell really more on first class functions for flow control than explicit recursion. You don't need to define factorial recursively in Haskell, as was done above. I think something like
fac n = foldr (*) 1 [1..n]
is a perfectly idiomatic construction, and much closer in spirit to using a loop than to using explicit recursion.
A functional programming is identical to procedural programming in which global variables are not being used.
Procedural languages tend to keep track of state (using variables) and tend to execute as a sequence of steps. Purely functional languages don't keep track of state, use immutable values, and tend to execute as a series of dependencies. In many cases the status of the call stack will hold the information that would be equivalent to that which would be stored in state variables in procedural code.
Recursion is a classic example of functional style programming.
Konrad said:
As a consequence, a purely functional program always yields the same value for an input,
and the order of evaluation is not well-defined; which means that uncertain values like
user input or random values are hard to model in purely functional languages.
The order of evaluation in a purely functional program may be hard(er) to reason about (especially with laziness) or even unimportant but I think that saying it is not well defined makes it sound like you can't tell if your program is going to work at all!
Perhaps a better explanation would be that control flow in functional programs is based on when the value of a function's arguments are needed. The Good Thing about this that in well written programs, state becomes explicit: each function lists its inputs as parameters instead of arbitrarily munging global state. So on some level, it is easier to reason about order of evaluation with respect to one function at a time. Each function can ignore the rest of the universe and focus on what it needs to do. When combined, functions are guaranteed to work the same[1] as they would in isolation.
... uncertain values like user input or random values are hard to model in purely
functional languages.
The solution to the input problem in purely functional programs is to embed an imperative language as a DSL using a sufficiently powerful abstraction. In imperative (or non-pure functional) languages this is not needed because you can "cheat" and pass state implicitly and order of evaluation is explicit (whether you like it or not). Because of this "cheating" and forced evaluation of all parameters to every function, in imperative languages 1) you lose the ability to create your own control flow mechanisms (without macros), 2) code isn't inherently thread safe and/or parallelizable by default, 3) and implementing something like undo (time travel) takes careful work (imperative programmer must store a recipe for getting the old value(s) back!), whereas pure functional programming buys you all these things—and a few more I may have forgotten—"for free".
I hope this doesn't sound like zealotry, I just wanted to add some perspective. Imperative programming and especially mixed paradigm programming in powerful languages like C# 3.0 are still totally effective ways to get things done and there is no silver bullet.
[1] ... except possibly with respect memory usage (cf. foldl and foldl' in Haskell).
To expand on Konrad's comment:
and the order of evaluation is not
well-defined
Some functional languages have what is called Lazy Evaluation. Which means a function is not executed until the value is needed. Until that time the function itself is what is passed around.
Procedural languages are step 1 step 2 step 3... if in step 2 you say add 2 + 2, it does it right then. In lazy evaluation you would say add 2 + 2, but if the result is never used, it never does the addition.
If you have a chance, I would recommand getting a copy of Lisp/Scheme, and doing some projects in it. Most of the ideas that have lately become bandwagons were expressed in Lisp decades ago: functional programming, continuations (as closures), garbage collection, even XML.
So that would be a good way to get a head start on all these current ideas, and a few more besides, like symbolic computation.
You should know what functional programming is good for, and what it isn't good for. It isn't good for everything. Some problems are best expressed in terms of side-effects, where the same question gives differet answers depending on when it is asked.
#Creighton:
In Haskell there is a library function called product:
prouduct list = foldr 1 (*) list
or simply:
product = foldr 1 (*)
so the "idiomatic" factorial
fac n = foldr 1 (*) [1..n]
would simply be
fac n = product [1..n]
Procedural programming divides sequences of statements and conditional constructs into separate blocks called procedures that are parameterized over arguments that are (non-functional) values.
Functional programming is the same except that functions are first-class values, so they can be passed as arguments to other functions and returned as results from function calls.
Note that functional programming is a generalization of procedural programming in this interpretation. However, a minority interpret "functional programming" to mean side-effect-free which is quite different but irrelevant for all major functional languages except Haskell.
None of the answers here show idiomatic functional programming. The recursive factorial answer is great for representing recursion in FP, but the majority of code is not recursive so I don't think that answer is fully representative.
Say you have an arrays of strings, and each string represents an integer like "5" or "-200". You want to check this input array of strings against your internal test case (Using integer comparison). Both solutions are shown below
Procedural
arr_equal(a : [Int], b : [Str]) -> Bool {
if(a.len != b.len) {
return false;
}
bool ret = true;
for( int i = 0; i < a.len /* Optimized with && ret*/; i++ ) {
int a_int = a[i];
int b_int = parseInt(b[i]);
ret &= a_int == b_int;
}
return ret;
}
Functional
eq = i, j => i == j # This is usually a built-in
toInt = i => parseInt(i) # Of course, parseInt === toInt here, but this is for visualization
arr_equal(a : [Int], b : [Str]) -> Bool =
zip(a, b.map(toInt)) # Combines into [Int, Int]
.map(eq)
.reduce(true, (i, j) => i && j) # Start with true, and continuously && it with each value
While pure functional languages are generally research languages (As the real-world likes free side-effects), real-world procedural languages will use the much simpler functional syntax when appropriate.
This is usually implemented with an external library like Lodash, or available built-in with newer languages like Rust. The heavy lifting of functional programming is done with functions/concepts like map, filter, reduce, currying, partial, the last three of which you can look up for further understanding.
Addendum
In order to be used in the wild, the compiler will normally have to work out how to convert the functional version into the procedural version internally, as function call overhead is too high. Recursive cases such as the factorial shown will use tricks such as tail call to remove O(n) memory usage. The fact that there are no side effects allows functional compilers to implement the && ret optimization even when the .reduce is done last. Using Lodash in JS, obviously does not allow for any optimization, so it is a hit to performance (Which isn't usually a concern with web development). Languages like Rust will optimize internally (And have functions such as try_fold to assist && ret optimization).
To Understand the difference, one needs to to understand that "the godfather" paradigm of both procedural and functional programming is the imperative programming.
Basically procedural programming is merely a way of structuring imperative programs in which the primary method of abstraction is the "procedure." (or "function" in some programming languages). Even Object Oriented Programming is just another way of structuring an imperative program, where the state is encapsulated in objects, becoming an object with a "current state," plus this object has a set of functions, methods, and other stuff that let you the programmer manipulate or update the state.
Now, in regards to functional programming, the gist in its approach is that it identifies what values to take and how these values should be transferred. (so there is no state, and no mutable data as it takes functions as first class values and pass them as parameters to other functions).
PS: understanding every programming paradigm is used for should clarify the differences between all of them.
PSS: In the end of the day, programming paradigms are just different approaches to solving problems.
PSS: this quora answer has a great explanation.