Related
I was wondering the differences of variable and constants as I see different declaration of variable/constant in the codes written by ex-colleagues.
I know that variable is something that can be change throughout the code and the value of constant is fixed and can't be changed. By far I've written everything in variable (even if the variable will not be change). Is it my practice is incorrect? Perhaps my code is not complicated therefore I use variable all the time.
Anyhow, if my understanding proven wrong, please enlighten me with the correct guidelines on this matter will do.
It is a good code practice to use constants whenever possible.
At runtime / compile time it will be known that only Read operations can be done on those values, thus some accessing / IO optimizations will be done to the code automatically , which will significantly increase performance.
Another difference is that constants are stored in a different preallocated section of your code (compiler dependent, but on most compilers this is what happens), which makes them easier to access , and they don't get allocated / deallocated all the time (so another performance optimization).
And finnaly, constants can be evaluated at compile time .
For example, if you have an ecuation of constants, something like the following :
float a = const1 * const2 / const3 + const4;
Then the whole expression will be evaluated at compile time, saving cycles at runtime (since the value will always be the same).
Some popular constants that refer to this sort of optimization are PI , PI/2 , PI/4, 1/PI.
const int const_a = 10;
int static_a = 70;
public void sample()
{
static_a = const_a+10; //This is correct
// const_a=88; //It is wrong
}
In the above example, if we declare the variable as const we can't able to assign the value from anywhere but we can use that variable.
I've been watching this MSDN video with Brian Beckman and I'd like to better understand something he says:
Every imperitive programmer goes through this phase of learning that
functions can be replaced with table lookups
Now, I'm a C# programmer who never went to university, so perhaps somewhere along the line I missed out on something everyone else learned to understand.
What does Brian mean by:
functions can be replaced with table lookups
Are there practical examples of this being done and does it apply to all functions? He gives the example of the sin function, which I can make sense of, but how do I make sense of this in more general terms?
Brian just showed that the functions are data too. Functions in general are just a mapping of one set to another: y = f(x) is mapping of set {x} to set {y}: f:X->Y. The tables are mappings as well: [x1, x2, ..., xn] -> [y1, y2, ..., yn].
If function operates on finite set (this is the case in programming) then it's can be replaced with a table which represents that mapping. As Brian mentioned, every imperative programmer goes through this phase of understanding that the functions can be replaced with the table lookups just for performance reason.
But it doesn't mean that all functions easily can or should be replaced with the tables. It only means that you theoretically can do that for every function. So the conclusion would be that the functions are data because tables are (in the context of programming of course).
There is a lovely trick in Mathematica that creates a table as a side-effect of evaluating function-calls-as-rewrite-rules. Consider the classic slow-fibonacci
fib[1] = 1
fib[2] = 1
fib[n_] := fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]
The first two lines create table entries for the inputs 1 and 2. This is exactly the same as saying
fibTable = {};
fibTable[1] = 1;
fibTable[2] = 1;
in JavaScript. The third line of Mathematica says "please install a rewrite rule that will replace any occurrence of fib[n_], after substituting the pattern variable n_ with the actual argument of the occurrence, with fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]." The rewriter will iterate this procedure, and eventually produce the value of fib[n] after an exponential number of rewrites. This is just like the recursive function-call form that we get in JavaScript with
function fib(n) {
var result = fibTable[n] || ( fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) );
return result;
}
Notice it checks the table first for the two values we have explicitly stored before making the recursive calls. The Mathematica evaluator does this check automatically, because the order of presentation of the rules is important -- Mathematica checks the more specific rules first and the more general rules later. That's why Mathematica has two assignment forms, = and :=: the former is for specific rules whose right-hand sides can be evaluated at the time the rule is defined; the latter is for general rules whose right-hand sides must be evaluated when the rule is applied.
Now, in Mathematica, if we say
fib[4]
it gets rewritten to
fib[3] + fib[2]
then to
fib[2] + fib[1] + 1
then to
1 + 1 + 1
and finally to 3, which does not change on the next rewrite. You can imagine that if we say fib[35], we will generate enormous expressions, fill up memory, and melt the CPU. But the trick is to replace the final rewrite rule with the following:
fib[n_] := fib[n] = fib[n-1] + fib[n-2]
This says "please replace every occurrence of fib[n_] with an expression that will install a new specific rule for the value of fib[n] and also produce the value." This one runs much faster because it expands the rule-base -- the table of values! -- at run time.
We can do likewise in JavaScript
function fib(n) {
var result = fibTable[n] || ( fib(n-1) + fib(n-2) );
fibTable[n] = result;
return result;
}
This runs MUCH faster than the prior definition of fib.
This is called "automemoization" [sic -- not "memorization" but "memoization" as in creating a memo for yourself].
Of course, in the real world, you must manage the sizes of the tables that get created. To inspect the tables in Mathematica, do
DownValues[fib]
To inspect them in JavaScript, do just
fibTable
in a REPL such as that supported by Node.JS.
In the context of functional programming, there is the concept of referential transparency. A function that is referentially transparent can be replaced with its value for any given argument (or set of arguments), without changing the behaviour of the program.
Referential Transparency
For example, consider a function F that takes 1 argument, n. F is referentially transparent, so F(n) can be replaced with the value of F evaluated at n. It makes no difference to the program.
In C#, this would look like:
public class Square
{
public static int apply(int n)
{
return n * n;
}
public static void Main()
{
//Should print 4
Console.WriteLine(Square.apply(2));
}
}
(I'm not very familiar with C#, coming from a Java background, so you'll have to forgive me if this example isn't quite syntactically correct).
It's obvious here that the function apply cannot have any other value than 4 when called with an argument of 2, since it's just returning the square of its argument. The value of the function only depends on its argument, n; in other words, referential transparency.
I ask you, then, what the difference is between Console.WriteLine(Square.apply(2)) and Console.WriteLine(4). The answer is, there's no difference at all, for all intents are purposes. We could go through the entire program, replacing all instances of Square.apply(n) with the value returned by Square.apply(n), and the results would be the exact same.
So what did Brian Beckman mean with his statement about replacing function calls with a table lookup? He was referring to this property of referentially transparent functions. If Square.apply(2) can be replaced with 4 with no impact on program behaviour, then why not just cache the values when the first call is made, and put it in a table indexed by the arguments to the function. A lookup table for values of Square.apply(n) would look somewhat like this:
n: 0 1 2 3 4 5 ...
Square.apply(n): 0 1 4 9 16 25 ...
And for any call to Square.apply(n), instead of calling the function, we can simply find the cached value for n in the table, and replace the function call with this value. It's fairly obvious that this will most likely bring about a large speed increase in the program.
I get a string like this: "000AND111"
I need to calculate this and return the result.
How I do it in Flex?
just see this post thanks to the pingback by #powerlljf3
I would suggest a 3 phases approach.
1- write a small parser that split up the string in meaningful tokens (numbers and operands). Since Operands are all litterals and numbers are 0/1 combination, the parser is pretty easy (the grammer is LL1), so regular expressions can be really do the work here.
2- after building up the sequency of tokens and what is tecnically call the parsed expression tree (the sequency of tokens and operands), just implements any operand with the specific function (the link to my blog, works for few of the common boolean algebra operands)
3- finally just start reading tokens from left to right, and apply function where operands are found.
I would look through this http://www.nicolabortignon.com/as3-bitwise-operations/. It has many examples of binary math that can be used in AS3.
Generally, I have a headache because something is wrong with my reasoning:
For 1 set of arguments, referential transparent function will always return 1 set of output values.
that means that such function could be represented as a truth table (a table where 1 set of output parameters is specified for 1 set of arguments).
that makes the logic behind such functions is combinational (as opposed to sequential)
that means that with pure functional language (that has only rt functions) it is possible to describe only combinational logic.
The last statement is derived from this reasoning, but it's obviously false; that means there is an error in reasoning. [question: where is error in this reasoning?]
UPD2. You, guys, are saying lots of interesting stuff, but not answering my question. I defined it more explicitly now. Sorry for messing up with question definition!
Question: where is error in this reasoning?
A referentially transparent function might require an infinite truth table to represent its behavior. You will be hard pressed to design an infinite circuit in combinatory logic.
Another error: the behavior of sequential logic can be represented purely functionally as a function from states to states. The fact that in the implementation these states occur sequentially in time does not prevent one from defining a purely referentially transparent function which describes how state evolves over time.
Edit: Although I apparently missed the bullseye on the actual question, I think my answer is pretty good, so I'm keeping it :-) (see below).
I guess a more concise way to phrase the question might be: can a purely functional language compute anything an imperative one can?
First of all, suppose you took an imperative language like C and made it so you can't alter variables after defining them. E.g.:
int i;
for (i = 0; // okay, that's one assignment
i < 10; // just looking, that's all
i++) // BUZZZ! Sorry, can't do that!
Well, there goes your for loop. Do we get to keep our while loop?
while (i < 10)
Sure, but it's not very useful. i can't change, so it's either going to run forever or not run at all.
How about recursion? Yes, you get to keep recursion, and it's still plenty useful:
int sum(int *items, unsigned int count)
{
if (count) {
// count the first item and sum the rest
return *items + sum(items + 1, count - 1);
} else {
// no items
return 0;
}
}
Now, with functions, we don't alter state, but variables can, well, vary. Once a variable passes into our function, it's locked in. However, we can call the function again (recursion), and it's like getting a brand new set of variables (the old ones stay the same). Although there are multiple instances of items and count, sum((int[]){1,2,3}, 3) will always evaluate to 6, so you can replace that expression with 6 if you like.
Can we still do anything we want? I'm not 100% sure, but I think the answer is "yes". You certainly can if you have closures, though.
You have it right. The idea is, once a variable is defined, it can't be redefined. A referentially transparent expression, given the same variables, always yields the same result value.
I recommend looking into Haskell, a purely functional language. Haskell doesn't have an "assignment" operator, strictly speaking. For instance:
my_sum numbers = ??? where
i = 0
total = 0
Here, you can't write a "for loop" that increments i and total as it goes along. All is not lost, though. Just use recursion to keep getting new is and totals:
my_sum numbers = f 0 0 where
f i total =
if i < length numbers
then f i' total'
else total
where
i' = i+1
total' = total + (numbers !! i)
(Note that this is a stupid way to sum a list in Haskell, but it demonstrates a method of coping with single assignment.)
Now, consider this highly imperative-looking code:
main = do
a <- readLn
b <- readLn
print (a + b)
It's actually syntactic sugar for:
main =
readLn >>= (\a ->
readLn >>= (\b ->
print (a + b)))
The idea is, instead of main being a function consisting of a list of statements, main is an IO action that Haskell executes, and actions are defined and chained together with bind operations. Also, an action that does nothing, yielding an arbitrary value, can be defined with the return function.
Note that bind and return aren't specific to actions. They can be used with any type that calls itself a Monad to do all sorts of funky things.
To clarify, consider readLn. readLn is an action that, if executed, would read a line from standard input and yield its parsed value. To do something with that value, we can't store it in a variable because that would violate referential transparency:
a = readLn
If this were allowed, a's value would depend on the world and would be different every time we called readLn, meaning readLn wouldn't be referentially transparent.
Instead, we bind the readLn action to a function that deals with the action, yielding a new action, like so:
readLn >>= (\x -> print (x + 1))
The result of this expression is an action value. If Haskell got off the couch and performed this action, it would read an integer, increment it, and print it. By binding the result of an action to a function that does something with the result, we get to keep referential transparency while playing around in the world of state.
As far as I understand it, referential transparency just means: A given function will always yield the same result when invoked with the same arguments. So, the mathematical functions you learned about in school are referentially transparent.
A language you could check out in order to learn how things are done in a purely functional language would be Haskell. There are ways to use "updateable storage possibilities" like the Reader Monad, and the State Monad for example. If you're interested in purely functional data structures, Okasaki might be a good read.
And yes, you're right: Order of evaluation in a purely functional language like haskell does not matter as in non-functional languages, because if there are no side effects, there is no reason to do someting before/after something else -- unless the input of one depends on the output of the other, or means like monads come into play.
I don't really know about the truth-table question.
Here's my stab at answering the question:
Any system can be described as a combinatorial function, large or small.
There's nothing wrong with the reasoning that pure functions can only deal with combinatorial logic -- it's true, just that functional languages hide that from you to some extent or another.
You could even describe, say, the workings of a game engine as a truth table or a combinatorial function.
You might have a deterministic function that takes in "the current state of the entire game" as the RAM occupied by the game engine and the keyboard input, and returns "the state of the game one frame later". The return value would be determined by the combinations of the bits in the input.
Of course, in any meaningful and sane function, the input is parsed down to blocks of integers, decimals and booleans, but the combinations of the bits in those values is still determining the output of your function.
Keep in mind also that basic digital logic can be described in truth tables. The only reason that that's not done for anything more than, say, arithmetic on 4-bit integers, is because the size of the truth table grows exponentially.
The error in Your reasoning is the following:
"that means that such function could be represented as a truth table".
You conclude that from a functional language's property of referential transparency. So far the conclusion would sound plausible, but You oversee that a function is able to accept collections as input and process them in contrast to the fixed inputs of a logic gate.
Therefore a function does not equal a logic gate but rather a construction plan of such a logic gate depending on the actual (at runtime determined) input!
To comment on Your comment: Functional languages can - although stateless - implement a state machine by constructing the states from scratch each time they are being accessed.
I have to write, for academic purposes, an application that plots user-input expressions like: f(x) = 1 - exp(3^(5*ln(cosx)) + x)
The approach I've chosen to write the parser is to convert the expression in RPN with the Shunting-Yard algorithm, treating primitive functions like "cos" as unary operators. This means the function written above would be converted in a series of tokens like:
1, x, cos, ln, 5, *,3, ^, exp, -
The problem is that to plot the function I have to evaluate it LOTS of times, so applying the stack evaluation algorithm for each input value would be very inefficient.
How can I solve this? Do I have to forget the RPN idea?
How much is "LOTS of times"? A million?
What kind of functions could be input? Can we assume they are continuous?
Did you try measuring how well your code performs?
(Sorry, started off with questions!)
You could try one of the two approaches (or both) described briefly below (there are probably many more):
1) Parse Trees.
You could create a Parse Tree. Then do what most compilers do to optimize expressions, constant folding, common subexpression elimination (which you could achieve by linking together the common expression subtrees and caching the result), etc.
Then you could use lazy evaluation techniques to avoid whole subtrees. For instance if you have a tree
*
/ \
A B
where A evaluates to 0, you could completely avoid evaluating B as you know the result is 0. With RPN you would lose out on the lazy evaluation.
2) Interpolation
Assuming your function is continuous, you could approximate your function to a high degree of accuracy using Polynomial Interpolation. This way you can do the complicated calculation of the function a few times (based on the degree of polynomial you choose), and then do fast polynomial calculations for the rest of the time.
To create the initial set of data, you could just use approach 1 or just stick to using your RPN, as you would only be generating a few values.
So if you use Interpolation, you could keep your RPN...
Hope that helps!
Why reinvent the wheel? Use a fast scripting language instead.
Integrating something like lua into your code will take very little time and be very fast.
You'll usually be able byte compile your expression, and that should result in code that runs very fast, certainly fast enough for simple 1D graphs.
I recommend lua as its fast, and integrates with C/C++ easier than any other scripting language. Another good options would be python, but while its better known I found it trickier to integrate.
Why not keep around a parse tree (I use "tree" loosely, in your case it's a sequence of operations), and mark input variables accordingly? (e.g. for inputs x, y, z, etc. annotate "x" with 0 to signify the first input variable, "y" with 1 to signify the 2nd input variable, etc.)
That way you can parse the expression once, keep the parse tree, take in an array of inputs, and apply the parse tree to evaluate.
If you're worrying about the performance aspects of the evaluation step (vs. the parsing step), I don't think you'd do much better unless you get into vectorizing (applying your parse tree on a vector of inputs at once) or hard-coding the operations into a fixed function.
What I do is use the shunting algorithm to produce the RPN. I then "compile" the RPN into a tokenised form that can be executed (interpretively) repeatedly without re-parsing the expression.
Michael Anderson suggested Lua. If you want to try Lua for just this task, see my ae library.
Inefficient in what sense? There's machine time and programmer time. Is there a standard for how fast it needs to run with a particular level of complexity? Is it more important to finish the assignment and move on to the next one (perfectionists sometimes never finish)?
All those steps have to happen for each input value. Yes, you could have a heuristic that scans the list of operations and cleans it up a bit. Yes, you could compile some of it down to assembly instead of calling +, * etc. as high level functions. You can compare vectorization (doing all the +'s then all the *'s etc, with a vector of values) to doing the whole procedure for one value at a time. But do you need to?
I mean, what do you think happens if you plot a function in gnuplot or Mathematica?
Your simple interpretation of RPN should work just fine, especially since it contains
math library functions like cos, exp, and ^(pow, involving logs)
symbol table lookup
Hopefully, your symbol table (with variables like x in it) will be short and simple.
The library functions will most likely be your biggest time-takers, so unless your interpreter is poorly written, it will not be a problem.
If, however, you really gotta go for speed, you could translate the expression into C code, compile and link it into a dll on-the-fly and load it (takes about a second). That, plus memoized versions of the math functions, could give you the best performance.
P.S. For parsing, your syntax is pretty vanilla, so a simple recursive-descent parser (about a page of code, O(n) same as shunting-yard) should work just fine. In fact, you might just be able to compute the result as you parse (if math functions are taking most of the time), and not bother with parse trees, RPN, any of that stuff.
I think this RPN based library can serve the purpose: http://expressionoasis.vedantatree.com/
I used it with one of my calculator project and it works well. It is small and simple, but extensible.
One optimization would be to replace the stack with an array of values and implement the evaluator as a three address mechine where each operation loads from two (or one) location and saves to a third. This can make for very tight code:
struct Op {
enum {
add, sub, mul, div,
cos, sin, tan,
//....
} op;
int a, b, d;
}
void go(Op* ops, int n, float* v) {
for(int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
switch(ops[i].op) {
case add: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] + v[op[i].b]; break;
case sub: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] - v[op[i].b]; break;
case mul: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] * v[op[i].b]; break;
case div: v[op[i].d] = v[op[i].a] / v[op[i].b]; break;
//...
}
}
}
The conversion from RPN to 3-address should be easy as 3-address is a generalization.