What is the rationale behind allowing rebinding of variables in Elixir, when Erlang doesn't allow that?
Most functional languages don't allow rebinding of variables in the same scope. So Elixir allowing this does definitely give it an non-functional, imperative feel. Erlang's problem is rather lack of scope, or to be more precise that there is only one scope in a whole function clause. We did have serious discussions whether to introduce scope but in the end we decided against it as it was backwards incompatible with the existing system. And developers hate backwards inconsistent changes.
The Erlang way has one serious benefit: when you get it wrong you generally get an error so you can SEE the mistake. This compared just getting strange behaviour when a variable doesn't have the value you expect it to have which is MUCH harder to detect and correct.
Personally I think that the problem of new variable names, for example using the number scheme, is greatly overblown. Compared to the time it takes me to work out WHAT I am going to do changing variable names is trivial. And after a while you just see it without reflecting about it. Honestly.
EDIT:
Also when chaining data through a sequence of functions the actual meaning of the data changes so reusing the same variable name can be very misleading. It can end up just meaning a generic "data I am passing from one function to another".
Here's the rationale straight from the horse's mouth:
http://blog.plataformatec.com.br/2016/01/comparing-elixir-and-erlang-variables/
Because it's simpler.
Take a look at this question posted to the Erlang mailing list in 2009. Specifically this part:
I like pattern matching in the majority of cases, but I find I write
enough code where I need to incrementally update a data structure, and
maintaining that code is a pain when I have code like:
X = foo(),
X1 = bar(X),
X2 = xyzzy(X1),
blah(X2).
and later want to change it to:
X = foo(),
X1 = whee(X),
X2 = bar(X1),
X3 = xyzzy(X2),
blah(X3).
Editor's note--this is the reply to that question.
This goes through IRC a lot. This is a result of poor variable naming
practice, and there is no need to introduce rebinding to "fix" it;
just stop using single letters and counters as variable names.
If for example that was written
FooStateX = foo(),
PostBarX = bar(FooStateX),
OnceXyzziedX = xyzzy(PostBarX),
blah(OnceXyzziedX).
The code demonstrated there isn't all that uncommon in Erlang (note the remark "this goes through IRC a lot"). Elixir's ability to simply rebind names saves us from having to generate new dummy names for things all the time. That's all. It's wise to bear in mind that the original creators of Erlang weren't trying to build a functional language. They were simply pragmatic developers who had a problem to solve. Elixir's approach is simple pragmatism.
Related
This may be a naive question, and I suspect the answer is "yes," but I had no luck searching here and elsewhere on terms like "erlang compiler optimization constants" etc.
At any rate, can (will) the erlang compiler create a data structure that is constant or literal at compile time, and use that instead of creating code that creates the data structure over and over again? I will provide a simple toy example.
test() -> sets:from_list([usd, eur, yen, nzd, peso]).
Can (will) the compiler simply stick the set there at the output of the function instead of computing it every time?
The reason I ask is, I want to have a lookup table in a program I'm developing. The table is just constants that can be calculated (at least theoretically) at compile time. I'd like to just compute the table once, and not have to compute it every time. I know I could do this in other ways, such as compute the thing and store it in the process dictionary for instance (or perhaps an ets or mnesia table). But I always start simple, and to me the simplest solution is to do it like the toy example above, if the compiler optimizes it.
If that doesn't work, is there some other way to achieve what I want? (I guess I could look into parse transforms if they would work for this, but that's getting more complicated than I would like?)
THIS JUST IN. I used compile:file/2 with an 'S' option to produce the following. I'm no erlang assembly expert, but it looks like the optimization isn't performed:
{function, test, 0, 5}.
{label,4}.
{func_info,{atom,exchange},{atom,test},0}.
{label,5}.
{move,{literal,[usd,eur,yen,nzd,peso]},{x,0}}.
{call_ext_only,1,{extfunc,sets,from_list,1}}.
No, erlang compiler doesn't perform partial evaluation of calls to external modules which set is. You can use ct_expand module of famous parse_trans to achieve this effect.
providing that set is not native datatype for erlang, and (as matter of fact) it's just a library, written in erlang, I don't think it's feasibly for compiler to create sets at compile time.
As you could see, sets are not optimized in erlang (as any other library written in erlang).
The way of solving your problem is to compute the set once and pass it as a parameter to the functions or to use ETS/Mnesia.
According to wikipedia: functional programming is a programming paradigm that treats computation as the evaluation of mathematical functions and avoids state and mutable data. (emphasis mine).
Is this really true? My personal understanding is that it makes the state more explicit, in the sense that programming is essentially applying functions (transforms) to a given state to get a transformed state. In particular, constructs like monads let you carry the state explicitly through functions. I also don't think that any programming paradigm can avoid state altogether.
So, is the Wikipedia definition right or wrong? And if it is wrong what is a better way to define functional programming?
Edit: I guess a central point in this question is what is state? Do you understand state to be variables or object attributes (mutable data) or is immutable data also state? To take an example (in F#):
let x = 3
let double n = 2 * n
let y = double x
printfn "%A" y
would you say this snippet contains a state or not?
Edit 2: Thanks to everyone for participating. I now understand the issue to be more of a linguistic discrepancy, with the use of the word state differing from one community to the other, as Brian mentions in his comment. In particular, many in the functional programming community (mainly Haskellers) interpret state to carry some state of dynamism like a signal varying with time. Other uses of state in things like finite state machine, Representational State Transfer, and stateless network protocols may mean different things.
I think you're just using the term "state" in an unusual way. If you consider adding 1 and 1 to get 2 as being stateful, then you could say functional programming embraces state. But when most people say "state," they mean storing and changing values, such that calling a function might leave things different than before the function was called, and calling the function a second time with the same input might not have the same result.
Essentially, stateless computations are things like this:
The result of 1 + 1
The string consisting of 's' prepended to "pool"
The area of a given rectangle
Stateful computations are things like this:
Increment a counter
Remove an element from the array
Set the width of a rectangle to be twice what it is now
Rather than avoids state, think of it like this:
It avoids changing state. That word "mutable".
Think in terms of a C# or Java object. Normally you would call a method on the object and you might expect it to modify its internal state as a result of that method call.
With functional programming, you still have data, but it's just passed through each function, creating output that corresponds to the input and the operation.
At least in theory. In reality, not everything you do actually works functionally so you frequently end up hiding state to make things work.
Edit:
Of course, hiding state also frequently leads to some spectacular bugs, which is why you should only use functional programming languages for purely functional situations. I've found that the best languages are the ones that are object oriented and functional, like Python or C#, giving you the best of both worlds and the freedom to move between each as necessary.
The Wikipedia definition is right. Functional programming avoids state. Functional programming means that you apply a function to a given input and get a result. However, it is guaranteed that your input will not be modified in any way. It doesn't mean that you cannot have a state at all. Monads are perfect example of that.
The Wikipedia definition is correct. It may seem puzzling at first, but if you start working with say Haskell, you'll note that you don't have any variables laying around containing values.
The state can still be sort of represented using state monads.
At some point, all apps must have state (some data that changes). Otherwise, you would start the app up, it wouldn't be able to do anything, and the app would finish.
You can have immutable data structures as part of your state, but you will swap those for other instances of other immutable data structures.
The point of immutability is not that data does not change over time. The point is that you can create pure functions that don't have side effects.
Are there any downsides to passing in an Erlang record as a function argument?
There is no downside, unless the caller function and the called function were compiled with different 'versions' of the record.
Some functions from erlangs standard library do indeed use records in their interfaces (I can't recall which ones, right now--but there are a few), but in my humble opinion, the major turnoff is, that the user will have to include your header file, just to use your function.
That seems un-erlangy to me (you don't ever do that normally, unless you're using said functions from the stdlib), creates weird inter-dependencies, and is harder to use from the shell (I wouldn't know from the top of my head how to load & use records from the shell -- I usually just "cheat" by constructing the tuple manually...)
Also, handling records is a bit different from the stuff you usually do, since their keys per default take the atom 'undefined' as value, au contraire to how you usually do it with proplists, for instance (a value that wasn't set just isn't there) -- this might cause some confusion for people who do not normally work a lot with records.
So, all-in-all, I'd usually prefer a proplist or something similar, unless I have a very good reason to use a record. I do usually use records, though, for internal state of for example a gen_server or a gen_fsm; It's somewhat easier to update that way.
I think the biggest downside is that it's not idiomatic. Have you ever seen an API that required you to construct a record and pass it in?
Why would you want to do something that's going to feel foreign to any erlang programmer? There's a convention already in use for optional named arguments to functions. Inventing yet another way without good cause is pointless.
Seems like it's inconsistent in the lists module. For example, split has the number as the first argument and the list as the second, but sublists has the list as the first argument and the len as the second argument.
OK, a little history as I remember it and some principles behind my style.
As Christian has said the libraries evolved and tended to get the argument order and feel from the impulses we were getting just then. So for example the reason why element/setelement have the argument order they do is because it matches the arg/3 predicate in Prolog; logical then but not now. Often we would have the thing being worked on first, but unfortunately not always. This is often a good choice as it allows "optional" arguments to be conveniently added to the end; for example string:substr/2/3. Functions with the thing as the last argument were often influenced by functional languages with currying, for example Haskell, where it is very easy to use currying and partial evaluation to build specific functions which can then be applied to the thing. This is very noticeable in the higher order functions in lists.
The only influence we didn't have was from the OO world. :-)
Usually we at least managed to be consistent within a module, but not always. See lists again. We did try to have some consistency, so the argument order in the higher order functions in dict/sets match those of the corresponding functions in lists.
The problem was also aggravated by the fact that we, especially me, had a rather cavalier attitude to libraries. I just did not see them as a selling point for the language, so I wasn't that worried about it. "If you want a library which does something then you just write it" was my motto. This meant that my libraries were structured, just not always with the same structure. :-) That was how many of the initial libraries came about.
This, of course, creates unnecessary confusion and breaks the law of least astonishment, but we have not been able to do anything about it. Any suggestions of revising the modules have always been met with a resounding "no".
My own personal style is a usually structured, though I don't know if it conforms to any written guidelines or standards.
I generally have the thing or things I am working on as the first arguments, or at least very close to the beginning; the order depends on what feels best. If there is a global state which is chained through the whole module, which there usually is, it is placed as the last argument and given a very descriptive name like St0, St1, ... (I belong to the church of short variable names). Arguments which are chained through functions (both input and output) I try to keep the same argument order as return order. This makes it much easier to see the structure of the code. Apart from that I try to group together arguments which belong together. Also, where possible, I try to preserve the same argument order throughout a whole module.
None of this is very revolutionary, but I find if you keep a consistent style then it is one less thing to worry about and it makes your code feel better and generally be more readable. Also I will actually rewrite code if the argument order feels wrong.
A small example which may help:
fubar({f,A0,B0}, Arg2, Ch0, Arg4, St0) ->
{A1,Ch1,St1} = foo(A0, Arg2, Ch0, St0),
{B1,Ch2,St2} = bar(B0, Arg4, Ch1, St1),
Res = baz(A1, B1),
{Res,Ch2,St2}.
Here Ch is a local chained through variable while St is a more global state. Check out the code on github for LFE, especially the compiler, if you want a longer example.
This became much longer than it should have been, sorry.
P.S. I used the word thing instead of object to avoid confusion about what I was talking.
No, there is no consistently-used idiom in the sense that you mean.
However, there are some useful relevant hints that apply especially when you're going to be making deeply recursive calls. For instance, keeping whichever arguments will remain unchanged during tail calls in the same order/position in the argument list allows the virtual machine to make some very nice optimizations.
Since Delphi makes you go all the way up to the var section of a method to declare a local variable, do you find yourself breaking "Curly's Law" (re-using variables) more often than you did in college?(unless of course, you programmed Pascal in college).
If so, what do you do to break yourself of that habit, especially in functions where you need to get and/or set large numbers of properties. Is there a threshold where it is acceptable to declare TempInt : Integer and TempStr : String. (Do you use an 'e' in Temp sometimes and not other times?)
I hardly ever reuse variables. I hate to say never, but it is close to never.
Here is why:
Small methods (It's good practice to keep methods and property-getters/setters as concise as possible).
When only one thing is done, no need to reuse variables
The var section is always on the screen.
The compiler reuses the storage as necessary, so reuse is only a lazy coder crutch with no performance improvements.
Newer versions of Delphi have CTRL+SHIFT+V to declare a variable if I am feeling lazy.
Reusing variables makes debugging more difficult - more time and effort is spent on maintenance then development (for any serious application) so always do things to make maintenance easier, even if it makes development a little harder.
Prefer user defined types, so a Account Balance is a specific type, not just a Currency. This means variables are less reusable anyway.
For loop variables (a common reused variable) are used less now that we can use for in and skip the iterator all together.
My variables have descriptive names, so it would not make sense to use them out of context.
Generally speaking, I like having all the variables at the top for the same reason I like having an interface section on my units. It is kind of like having an abstract on a paper - give me a general idea of what is going on without having to read the whole paper. Delphi could benefit from having the ability to declare variables at "inner scope" like within a for loop or other begin / end blocks, but I don't know how much that would distract from the cleanliness and readability of Delphi code.
This is just a matter of discipline. Yes, Delphi would probably be better served by inline variable declaration, but that's not really a big deal. Just be sure to name your variables in a descriptive way, and then it will just feel awkward to use them incorrectly. And, as Stephan Eggermont said, if your methods are really getting that long, then that's a whole different code smell.
Not really. As I make my methods really small the var section is not far away. As my method size has reduced a lot since university, I'd say I break it less often.
I definitely do tend to re-use local variables like 'Findex' (or just plain 'i') if the routine has several distinct iterative sections to it. Not really the best practice I guess, but I'd like to think it's only really obvious where I do it, and obviously the usage doesn't overlap.
It's not usually a big deal to go back to the top of the routine and key-in the new variables, though I didn't know about Ctrl-Shift-V (will be trying that later!).
It'll be interesting to see what everyone else says. :-)
I don't tend to reuse local vars as a general safety rule. I do love the new "var" live template stuff in d2007+. Just type var[tab] and the helper pops up. Also check out Ctrl-Shift-D (others mentioned Ctrl-Shift-V for local vars) to declare a field.
Declaring variables is very simple - some times they would get automatically created ('for' loop template), other times you can just use 'Declare Variable' refactoring (or 'Add Local Var' if you are using MMX - as you should).
You can develop your own style of coding that uses variables as required. I generally use unique vars (90%) with a few temp vars (10%) when required.
It depends on the nature of the var. If it is a var to help support other code (counter for loops, building SQL strings, etc.) then a temp var you can re-use is helpful. In this case your temp vars are useful as "disposable" vars in sections of code. Just add a comment to your var declarations indicating the temp vars.
i.e. //temp vars are re-used as required in this procedure --> clear/re-initialise them after/before use.
Other than that I avoid temp vars & never use them to hold critical data. A unique var should be used then to avoid confusion & make readability/maintenance of code clearer.
I think delphi makes the exception with the overuse of temp variables. Most of the time when i'm creating a function/procedure where i know i will need loops or temp strings, first thing i do is to create a var i,j:integer; tmp:string; and add more as needed :)
As a long time Delphi user (since 1.0) this is the major thing I hate about Pascal. all other modern languages support definition at the point of use, yet Delphi persists with the var section, and Delphi programmers persist in ridiculous hand-waving antics to justify it.
Well Curly did have a good point. I'm a sinner in that respect occasionally. Usually just a temp string variable for convenience more than anything.
To be honest I've never really thought about it... until now. I have no issue with the VAR section being where it is as that's been a habit formed since Delphi 1.0.
To answer the question, I only re-use a temp variable, usually a string, and usually only to gain some slight performance improvements. Don't have an issue with that.
I probably would have found this to be a bigger problem if hadn't had CTRL-SHIFT-V as a shortcut to the VAR section. I'm not writing GIGANTIC methods here, but sometimes they get a little out of hand (and I can justify this of course) and it helps a lot. I'm not sure if that shortcut comes from cnTools or GExperts, but they're both pretty useful and I'd recommend them both.