I know it might sound strange but I would like to know one thing in this new world where Microsoft Visual F# is getting into.
There are many application of this language, I am going to learn, regarding parsing, functional programming, structured programming... But what about artificial intelligence?
Are there any applications for Fuzzy Logic? Is F# a good language to be used for Fuzzy Logic applications?
At university we are studying Prolog and similar languages. Prolog is able to create complex query in a very plain and short expresisons (by taking advantage of predicates and facts). Is F# able to do this?
Thank you in advance.
Fuzzy Logic. F# doesn't provide any types for implementing fuzzy logic calculations out of the box, but it is certainly possible to use F# in this domain. The succinctness of F# and the ability to define custom overloaded operators should make code based on fuzzy logic quite nice. I did a quick search and discovered a few articles implementing fuzzy logic in F#:
Fuzzy Logic in F#, Example 1
FuzzyAdvisor - A Simple Fuzzy Logic Expert System in F#
Prolog is a bit different question. The power (and also the weakness) of Prolog come from the fact that it has backtracking built directly in the language. This makes it very nice for implementing search algorithms based on backtracking, but it also a limitation.
F# doesn't have any direct support for backtracking, but it is quite easy to write algorithms based on backtracking using recursion (which is the main control flow mechanism in both F# and Prolog).
Also, it is possible to implement domain specific language for logical programming in F#. This means that you'd implement something like Prolog within F# and then write your search algorithms using this mini-language in F# (possibly using other F# features as needed). You can find more information about similar problems in this question.
F# is a general purpose language with some nice language features, such as computation expression/Monad and quotation. You can assume that it has about the same power as C#.
It is not like Matlab or R, where a lot of pre-implemented libraries are built-in. If you want to implement a Fuzzy Logic library or other AI algorithms from scratch, F# is a very good language for you as its language features make life easier.
But if you just want to use a Fuzzy logic library, then using other languages or specialized systems will be more appropriate because F# or .Net in general does not have very good quality libraries in this aspect.
Related
I've done some research about Lua programming but I'm still confused about under which paradigm it can work.
In some walkthroughs, I've found that Lua is not made for Object-Oriented Programming. But they are other people that says it can work too for OOP. So, I'm looking in which programming paradigms it can work the best.
Lua is a "do what you want to" programming language. It doesn't pick paradigms; it is a bag of useful features that give you the freedom to use whatever paradigm that you need. It doesn't have functional language features, but it does feature functions as first-class objects and proper lexical scoping. So you can use it functionally if you so desire. It doesn't have "classes" or other such prototypes, but it does feature ways to encapsulate data and special syntax for calling a function with a "this" object. So you can use it to build objects.
Lua does not dictate what you do with it; that's up to you. It provides low-level tools that allow you to easily build whatever paradigm you wish.
Lua is an imperative language; so it is not ideal for functional programming.
Left by itself, Lua is a procedural language. However, given the simplicity of its data structures (it just has one: the table) it's very easy to add a "layer" on top of it and make it an object oriented language. The most basic inheritance rule can be achieved in as little as 10 lines of code. There are several libraries out there that provide a more refined experience though. My library, middleclass, is 140 LOC in total.
Another great way of using Lua is as an scripting language. It's small, fast, uses only standard C stuff, and it's standard lib is tiny. On the other hand, it doesn't come with "batteries included" like java does.
Finally, I find it very useful as a data notation language; you can express raw data in a format very similar to JSON.
In general, I think that Lua feels very close to javascript.
I'm currently developing a general-purpose agent-based programming language (its syntaxt will be somewhat inspired by Java, and we are also using object in this language).
Since the beginning of the project we were doubtful about the fact of using ANTLR or Xtext. At that time we found out that Xtext was implementing a subset of the feature of ANTLR. So we decided to use ANLTR for our language losing the possibility to have a full-fledged Eclipse editor for free for our language (such a nice features provided by Xtext).
However, as the best of my knowledge, this summer the Xtext project has done a big step forward. Quoting from the link:
What are the limitations of Xtext?
Sven: You can implement almost any kind of programming language or DSL
with Xtext. There is one exception, that is if you need to use so
called 'Semantic Predicates' which is a rather complicated thing I
don't think is worth being explained here. Very few languages really
need this concept. However the prominent example is C/C++. We want to
look into that topic for the next release.
And that is also reinforced in the Xtext documentation:
What is Xtext? No matter if you want to create a small textual domain-specific language (DSL) or you want to implement a full-blown
general purpose programming language. With Xtext you can create your
very own languages in a snap. Also if you already have an existing
language but it lacks decent tool support, you can use Xtext to create
a sophisticated Eclipse-based development environment providing
editing experience known from modern Java IDEs in a surprisingly short
amount of time. We call Xtext a language development framework.
If Xtext has got rid of its past limitations why is it still not possible to find a complex Xtext grammar for the best known programming languages (Java, C#, etc.)?
On the ANTLR website you can find tons of such grammar examples, for what concerns Xtext instead the only sample I was able to find is the one reported in the documentation. So maybe Xtext is still not mature to be used for implementing a general purpose programming language? I'm a bit worried about this... I would not start to re-write the grammar in Xtext for then to recognize that it was not suited for that.
I think nobody implemented Java or C++ because it is a lot of work (even with Xtext) and the existing tools and compilers are excellent.
However, you could have a look at Xbase and Xtend, which is the expression language we ship with Xtext. It is built with Xtext and is quite a good proof for what you can build with Xtext. We have done that in about 4 person months.
I did a couple of screencasts on Xtend:
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-1-basics.html
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-2-switch.html
http://blog.efftinge.de/2011/03/xtend-screencast-part-3-rich-strings-ie.html
Note, that you can simply embed Xbase expressions into your language.
I can't speak for what Xtext is or does well.
I can speak to the problem of developing robust tools for processing real languages, based on our experience with the DMS Software Reengineering Toolkit, which we imagine is a language manipulation framework.
First, parsing of real languages usually involves something messy in lexing and/or parsing, due to the historical ways these languages have evolved. Java is pretty clean. C# has context-dependent keywords and a rudimentary preprocessor sort of like C's. C has a full blown preprocessor. C++ is famously "hard to parse" due to ambiguities in the grammar and shenanigans with template syntax. COBOL is fairly ugly, doesn't have any reference grammars, and comes in a variety of dialects. PHP will turn you to stone if you look at it because it is so poorly defined. (DMS has parsers for all of these, used in anger on real applications).
Yet you can parse all of these with most of the available parsing technologies if you try hard enough, usually by abusing the lexer or the parser to achieve your goals (how the GNU guys abused Bison to parse C++ by tangling lexical analysis with symbol table lookup is a nice ugly case in point). But it takes a lot of effort to get the language details right, and the reference manuals are only close approximations of the truth with respect to what the compilers really accept.
If Xtext has a decent parsing engine, one can likely do this with Xtext. A brief perusal of the Xtext site sounds like the lexers and parsers are fairly decent. I didn't see anything about the "Semantic Predicate"s; we have them in DMS and they are lifesavers in some of the really dark corners of parsing. Even using the really good parsing technology (we use GLR parsers), it would be very hard to parse COBOL data declarations (extracting their nesting structure during the parse) without them.
You have an interesting problem in that your language isn't well defined yet. That will make your initial parsers somewhat messy, and you'll revise them a lot. Here's where strong parsing technology helps you: if you can revise your grammar easily you can focus on what you want your language to look like, rather than focusing on fighting the lexer and parser. The fact that you can change your language definition means in fact that if Xtext has some limitations, you can probably bend your language syntax to match without huge amounts of pain. ANTLR does have the proven ability to parse a language pretty much as you imagine it, modulo the usual amount of parser hacking.
What is never discussed is what else is needed to process a language for real. The first thing you need to be able to do is to construct ASTs, which ANTLR and YACC will help you do; I presume Xtext does also. You also need symbol tables, control and data flow analysis (both local and global), and machinery to transform your language into something else (presumably more executable). Doing just symbol tables you will find surprisingly hard; C++ has several hundred pages of "how to look up an identifier"; Java generics are a lot tougher to get right than you might expect. You might also want to prettyprint the AST back to source code, if you want to offer refactorings. (EDIT: Here both ANTLR and Xtext offer what amounts to text-template driven code generation).
Yet these are complex mechanisms that take as much time, if not more than building the parser. The reason DMS exists isn't because it can parse (we view this just as the ante in a poker game), but because all of this other stuff is very hard and we wanted to amortize the cost of doing it all (DMS has, we think, excellent support for all of these mechanisms but YMMV).
On reading the Xtext overview, it sounds like they have some support for symbol tables but it is unclear what kind of assumption is behind it (e.g., for C++ you have to support multiple inheritance and namespaces).
If you are already started down the ANTLR road and have something running, I'd be tempted to stay the course; I doubt if Xtext will offer you a lot of additional help. If you really really want Xtext's editor, then you can probably switch at the price of restructuring what grammar you have (this is a pretty typical price to pay when changing parsing paradigms). Expect most of your work to appear after you get the parser right, in an ad hoc way. I doubt you will find Xtext or ANTLR much different here.
I guess the most simple answer to your question is: Many general purpose languages can be implemented using Xtext. But since there is no general answer to which parser-capabilities a general purpose languages needs, there is no general answer to your questions.
However, I've got a few pointers:
With Xtext 2.0 (released this summer), Xtext supports syntactic predicates. This is one of the most requested features to handle ambiguous syntax without enabling antlr's backtracking.
You might want to look at the brand-new languages Xbase and Xtend, which are (judging based on their capabilities) general-purpose and which are developed using Xtext. Sven has some nice screen casts in his blog: http://blog.efftinge.de/
Regarding your question why we don't see Xtext-grammars for Java, C++, etc.:
With Xtext, a language is more than just a grammar, so just having a grammar that describes a language's syntax is a good starting point but usually not an artifact valuable enough for shipping. The reason is that with an Xtext-grammar you also define the AST's structure (Abstract Syntax Tree, and an Ecore Model in fact) including true cross references. Since this model is the main internal API of your language people usually spend a lot of thought designing it. Furthermore, to resolve cross references (aka linking) you need to implement scoping (as it is called in Xtext). Without a proper implementation of scoping you can either not have true cross references in your model or you'll get many lining errors.
A guess my point is that creating a grammar + designing the AST model + implementing scoping is just a little more effort that taking a grammar from some language-zoo and translating it to Xtext's syntax.
Got an idea: functions (in FP) could be composed similar ways as components in OOP. For components in OOP we use interfaces. For functions we could use delegates. Goal is to achieve decomposition, modularity and interchangeability. We could employ dependency injection to make it easier.
I tried to find something about the topic. No luck. Probably because there are no functional programs big enough to need this? While searching for enterprise scale applications written in FP I found this list.
Functional Programming in the Real World and this paper.
I hope I just missed the killer applications for FP, which would be big enough to deserve decomposition.
Question: Could you show decent real-world FP application (preferably open source), which uses decomposition into modules?
Bonus chatter: What is the usual pattern used? What kind of functions are usually decomposed into separate modules? Are the implementations ever mocked for testing purposes?
Some time ago I was learning F# and wondering about the same topics, so I asked about quality open source projects to learn from.
The reason why you're not seeing anything similar to dependency injection in functional programming is that it's just "natural", because you "inject dependencies" just by passing or composing functions. Or as this article puts it, "Functional dependency injection == currying", but that's just one mechanism.
Mocking frameworks are not necessary. If you need to mock something, you just pass a "stub" function.
See also this question about real-world Scala applications.
Either we're talking at cross-purposes (it's possible: I'm rather unfamiliar with OOP terminology) or you're missing a lot about functional programming. Modules and abstraction (i.e. interchangability) were basically invented in the functional language CLU. The seminal papers on abstract types are James Morris's Protection in programming languages and Types are not sets. Later, most improvements in module systems and abstraction have come from the functional programming world, through ML-like languages.
The killer application for functional programming is often said to be symbolic manipulation. Most compilers for functional languages are written in the language itself, so you could look up the source of your favorite functional language implementation. But pretty much any nontrivial program (functional or not) is written in a modular way to some extent — maybe I'm missing something about what you mean by “decomposition”? The modularity will be more visible and use more advanced concepts in strongly typed languages with an advanced module system, such as Standard ML and Objective Caml.
I recently began to read some F# related literature, speaking of "Real World Functional Programming" and "Expert F#" e. g.. At the beginning it's easy, because I have some background in Haskell, and know C#. But when it comes to "Language Oriented Programming" I just don't get it. - I read some explanations and it's like reading an academic paper that gets more abstract and strange with every sentence.
Does anybody have an easy example for that kind of stuff and how it compares to existing paradigms? It's not just academic fantasy, isn't it? ;)
Thanks,
wishi
Language oriented program (LOP) can be used to describe any of the following.
Creating an external language (DSL)
This is perhaps the most common use of LOP, and is where you have a specific domain - such as UPS shipping packages via transit types through routes, etc. Rather than try to encode all of these domain-specific entities inside of program code, you rather create a separate programming language for just that domain. So you can encode your problem in a separate, external language.
Creating an internal language
Sometimes you want your program code to look less like 'code' and map more closely to the problem domain. That is, have the code 'read more naturally'. A fluent interface is an example of this: Fluent Interface. Also, F# has Active Patterns which support this quite well.
I wrote a blog post on LOP a while back that provides some code examples.
F# has a few mechanisms for doing programming in a style one might call "language-oriented".
First, the syntax niceties (function calls don't need parentheses, can define own infix operators, ...) make it so that many user-defined libraries have the appearance of embedded DSLs.
Second, the F# "quotations" mechanism can enable you to quote code and then run it with an alternative semantics/evaluation engine.
Third, F# "computation expressions" (aka workflows, monads, ...) also provide a way to provide a type of alternative semantics for certain blocks of code.
All of these kinda fall into the EDSL category.
In Object Oriented Programming, you try to model a problem using Objects. You can then connect those Objects together to perform functions...and in the end solve the original problem.
In Language Oriented Programming, rather than use an existing Object Oriented or Functional Programming Language, you design a new Domain Specific Language that is best suited to efficiently solve your problem.
The term language Oriented Programming may be overloaded in that it might have different meanings to different people.
But in terms of how I've used it, it means that you create a DSL(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Specific_Language) before you start to solve your problem.
Once your DSL is created you would then write your program in terms of the DSL.
The idea being that your DSL is more suited to expressing the problem than a General purpose language would be.
Some examples would be the make file syntax or Ruby on Rails ActiveRecord class.
I haven't directly used language oriented programming in real-world situations (creating an actual language), but it is useful to think about and helps design better domain-driven objects.
In a sense, any real-world development in Lisp or Scheme can be considered "language-oriented," since you are developing the "language" of your application and its abstract tree as you code along. Cucumber is another real-world example I've heard about.
Please note that there are some problems to this approach (and any domain-driven approach) in real-world development. One major problem that I've dealt with before is mismatch between the logic that makes sense in the domain and the logic that makes sense in software. Domain (business) logic can be extremely convoluted and senseless - and causes domain models to break down.
An easy example of a domain-specific language, mentioned here, is SQL. Also: UNIX shell scripts.
Of course, if you are doing a lot of basic ops and have a lot of overlap with the underlying language, it is probably overengineering.
What is the added value for learning F# when you are already familiar with LISP?
Static typing (with type inference)
Algebraic data types
Pattern matching
Extensible pattern matching with active patterns.
Currying (with a nice syntax)
Monadic programming, called 'workflows', provides a nice way to do asynchronous programming.
A lot of these are relatively recent developments in the programming language world. This is something you'll see in F# that you won't in Lisp, especially Common Lisp, because the F# standard is still under development. As a result, you'll find there is a quite a bit to learn. Of course things like ADTs, pattern matching, monads and currying can be built as a library in Lisp, but it's nicer to learn how to use them in a language where they are conveniently built-in.
The biggest advantage of learning F# for real-world use is its integration with .NET.
Comparing Lisp directly to F# isn't really fair, because at the end of the day with enough time you could write the same app in either language.
However, you should learn F# for the same reasons that a C# or Java developer should learn it - because it allows functional programming on the .NET platform. I'm not 100% familiar with Lisp, but I assume it has some of the same problems as OCaml in that there isn't stellar library support. How do you do Database access in Lisp? What about high-performance graphics?
If you want to learn more about 'Why .NET', check out this SO question.
If you knew F# and Lisp, you'd find this a rather strange question to ask.
As others have pointed out, Lisp is dynamically typed. More importantly, the unique feature of Lisp is that it's homoiconic: Lisp code is a fundamental Lisp data type (a list). The macro system takes advantage of that by letting you write code which executes at compile-time and modifies other code.
F# has nothing like this - it's a statically typed language which borrows a lot of ideas from ML and Haskell, and runs it on .NET
What you are asking is akin to "Why do I need to learn to use a spoon if I know how to use a fork?"
Given that LISP is dynamically typed and F# is statically typed, I find such comparisons strange.
If I were switching from Lisp to F#, it would be solely because I had a task on my hands that hugely benefitted from some .NET-only library.
But I don't, so I'm not.
Money. F# code is already more valuable than Lisp code and this gap will widen very rapidly as F# sees widespread adoption.
In other words, you have a much better chance of earning a stable income using F# than using Lisp.
Cheers,
Jon Harrop.
F# is a very different language compared to most Lisp dialects. So F# gives you a very different angle of programming - an angle that you won't learn from Lisp. Most Lisp dialects are best used for incremental, interactive development of symbolic software. At the same time most Lisp dialects are not Functional Programming Languages, but more like multi-paradigm languages - with different dialects placing different weight on supporting FPL features (free of side effects, immutable data structures, algebraic data types, ...). Thus most Lisp dialects either lack static typing or don't put much emphasis on it.
So, if you know some Lisp dialect, then learning F# can make a lot of sense. Just don't think that much of your Lisp knowledge applies to F#, since F# is a very different language. As much as an imperative programming used to C or Java needs to unlearn some ideas when learning Lisp, one also needs to unlearn Lisp habits (no types, side effects, macros, ...) when using F#. F# is also driven by Microsoft and taking advantage of the .net framework.
F# has the benefit that .NET development (in general) is very widely adopted, easily available, and more mass market.
If you want to code F#, you can get Visual Studio, which many developers will already have...as opposed to getting the LISP environment up and running.
Additionally, existing .NET developers are much more likely to look at F# than LISP, if that means anything to you.
(This is coming from a .NET developer who coded, and loved, LISP, while in college).
I'm not sure if you would? If you find F# interesting that would be a reason. If you work requires it, it would be a reason. If you think it would make you more productive or bring you added value over your current knowledge, that would be a reason.
But if you don't find F# interesting, your work doesn't require it and you don't think it would make you more productive or bring you added value, then why would you?
If the question on the other hand is what F# gives that lisp don't, then type inference, pattern matching and integration with the rest of the .NET framework should be considered.
I know this thread is old but since I stumbled on this one I just wanted to comment on my reasons. I am learning F# simply for professional opportunities since .NET carries a lot of weight in a category of companies that dominate my field. The functional paradigm has been growing in use among more quantitatively and data oriented companies and I'd like to be one of the early comers to this trend. Currently there doesn't an exist a strong functional language that fully and safely integrates with the .NET library. I actually attempted to port some .NET from Lisp code and it's really a pain b/c the FFI only supports C primitives and .NET interoperability requires an 'interface' construct and even though I know how to do this in C it's really a huge pain. It would be really, really, good if Lisp went the extra mile in it's next standard and required a c++ class (including virtual functions w/ vtables), and a C# style interface type in it's FFI. Maybe even throw in a Java interface style type too. This would allow complete interoperability with the .NET library and make Lisp a strong contender as a large-scale language. However with that said, coming from a Lisp background made learning F# rather easy. And I like how F# has gone the extra mile to provide types that you would commonly see it quantitative type work. I believe F# was created with mathematical work in mind and that in itself has value over Lisp.
One way to look at this (the original question) is to match up the language (and associated tools and platforms) to the immediate task. If the task requires an overwhelming percentage of .NET code, and it would require less shoe-horning in one language than another to meet the task head-on, then take the path of least resistance (F#). If you don't need .NET capabilities, and you're comfortable working with LISP and there's no arm-bending to move away from it, keep using it.
Not really much different from comparing a hammer with a wrench. Pick the tool that fits the job most effectively. Trying to pick a tool that's objectively "best" is nonsense. And in any case, in 20 years, all of the currently "hot" languages might be outdated anyway.