By this I meant: when you design your app side effects free, etc, will F# code be automatically distributed across all cores?
No, I'm afraid not. Given that F# isn't a pure functional language (in the strictest sense), it would be rather difficult to do so I believe. The primary way to make good use of parallelism in F# is to use Async Workflows (mainly via the Async module I believe). The TPL (Task Parallel Library), which is being introduced with .NET 4.0, is going to fulfil a similar role in F# (though notably it can be used in all .NET languages equally well), though I can't say I'm sure exactly how it's going to integrate with the existing async framework. Perhaps Microsoft will simply advise the use of the TPL for everything, or maybe they will leave both as an option and one will eventually become the de facto standard...
Anyway, here are a few articles on asynchronous programming/workflows in F# to get you started.
http://blogs.msdn.com/dsyme/archive/2007/10/11/introducing-f-asynchronous-workflows.aspx
http://strangelights.com/blog/archive/2007/09/29/1597.aspx
http://www.infoq.com/articles/pickering-fsharp-async
F# does not make it automatic, it just makes it easy.
Yet another chance to link to Luca's PDC talk. Eight minutes starting at 52:20 are an awesome demo of F# async workflows. It rocks!
No, I'm pretty sure that it won't automatically parallelise for you. It would have to know that your code was side-effect free, which could be hard to prove, for one thing.
Of course, F# can make it easier to parallelise your code, particularly if you don't have any side effects... but that's a different matter.
Like the others mentioned, F# will not automatically scale across cores and will still require a framework such as the port of ParallelFX that Josh mentioned.
F# is commonly associated with potential for parallel processing because it defaults to objects being immutable, removing the need for locking for many scenarios.
On purity annotations: Code Contracts have a Pure attribute. I remember hearing the some parts of the BCL already use this. Potentially, this attribute could be used by parallellization frameworks as well, but I'm not aware of such work at this point. Also, I' not even sure how well code contacts are usable from within F#, so a lot of unknowns here.
Still, it will be interesting to see how all this stuff comes together.
No it will not. You must still explicitly marshal calls to other threads via one of the many mechanisms supported by F#.
My understanding is that it won't but Parallel Extensions is being modified to make it consumable by F#. Which won't make it automatically multi-thread it, should make it very easy to achieve.
Well, you have your answer, but I just wanted to add that I think this is the most significant limitation of F# stemming from the fact that it is a hybrid imperative/functional language.
I would like to see some extension to F# that declares a function to be pure. That is, it has no side-effects that are not denoted by the function's type. The idea would be that a function is pure only if it references other "known-pure" functions. Of course, this would only be useful if it were then possible to require that a delegate passed as a function parameter references a pure function.
Related
I wanted to try out in Dart some algorithms and patterns from Functional Programming, but a lot of them rely heavily on recursion, which might incur in serious memory leaks without Tail Call Optimization (TCO), which isn't mandatory for when implementing a language.
Is there an official statement on this topic from the Dart team or something about it in the documentation? I could probably figure out if this is currently present in the language by using Dart's Dev Tools and Profiling, however this way I would never be able to know the Dart team's intentions with respect to the topic, hence the raison d'être of this question.
Dart does not support tail-call optimization. There are no current plans to add it.
The primary reason is that it's a feature that you need to rely on in order to use, otherwise you get hugely inefficient code that might overflow the stack, and since JavaScript currently does not support tail call optimization, the feature cannot be efficiently compiled to JavaScript.
I am currently working on an F# project that contains many parallel calculations. As being bound to the trimmed .Net 4 Silverlight Framework (because of the required Silverlight compatibility) I cannot use the available .Net implmenetations and may only use the Monitor object and simple locking by using the lock Keyword.
Do you have any idea how a Shared-Exclusive lock implementation for F# might be desigend best?
I did some functional programming before but haven't concentrated on doing that parallel stuff (yet).
I'm not quite sure what exactly you need - if you need standard mutual exclusion, then the lock function is available in the Silverlight version of F# runtime.
If you need something more complex (such as multiple readers, single writer), then you can rewrite your code to use F# agents and solve the problem more elegantly. If you can add more details about the higher-level structure of your code, then someone can post an example how to solve your particular problem.
Anyway, the following SO answer shows how to write a reusable agent for multiple readers/single writer:
Implement CCR Interleave Arbiter in F#
As mentioned in the comment, you should probably try to avoid writing locks and low-level synchronization primitives explicitly, as this is a source of infinite number of bugs. F# agents give you a higher-level abstraction that is easier to use.
Theres an excellent chapter on this in Expert F# 2.0, Chapter 13 Reactive, Asynchronous, and Parallel Programming.
See example 13.13 shows a nice Request gate, something similar may be of use.
We have a program which perform graph analysis (namely Maximum-flow problem) on several graphs.
There is also the opportunity to process these in parallel.
There is already a large C# Code base, but we are intending to rewrite a large portion of this. Would it be better to do this type of operation in F#, as opposed to say C#?
Thanks, Pete
I think that this depends largely on the composition of your team - how well do you know F#?
I feel like I am able to develop almost anything more quickly in F# than C#. In particular, highly algorithmic programs are often more concise and readable when expressed in F# thanks to type inference. However, if you don't have much experience with F# there is a significant learning curve, which means that you may be better off sticking to C# if you already know that language well.
C#'s support for doing operations in parallel is roughly equivalent to F#'s, particularly if your task doesn't require accessing any shared mutable state (which seems to be the case for your task). If I understand your problem correctly, you'd just like to run the same operation on multiple graphs at the same time, which ought to be quite easy in either language. If you were trying to parallelize the max-flow algorithm itself, then F# might be a bit easier due to its stronger support for immutable data types. Where F# really beats C# is in doing asynchronous operations, but that seems less relevant here.
Is it possible that Microsoft will be able to make F# programs, either at VM execution time, or more likely at compile time, detect that a program was built with a functional language and automatically parallelize it better?
Right now I believe there is no such effort to try and execute a program that was built as single threaded program as a multi threaded program automatically.
That is to say, the developer would code a single threaded program. And the compiler would spit out a compiled program that is multi-threaded complete with mutexes and synchronization where needed.
Would these optimizations be visible in task manager in the process thread count, or would it be lower level than that?
I think this is unlikely in the near future. And if it does happen, I think it would be more likely at the IL level (assembly rewriting) rather than language level (e.g. something specific to F#/compiler). It's an interesting question, and I expect that some fine minds have been looking at this and will continue to look at this for a while, but in the near-term, I think the focus will be on making it easier for humans to direct the threading/parallelization of programs, rather than just having it all happen as if by magic.
(Language features like F# async workflows, and libraries like the task-parallel library and others, are good examples of near-term progress here; they can do most of the heavy lifting for you, especially when your program is more declarative than imperative, but they still require the programmer to opt-in, do analysis for correctness/meaningfulness, and probably make slight alterations to the structure of the code to make it all work.)
Anyway, that's all speculation; who can say what the future will bring? I look forward to finding out (and hopefully making some of it happen). :)
Being that F# is derived from Ocaml and Ocaml compilers can optimize your programs far better than other compilers, it probably could be done.
I don't believe it is possible to autovectorize code in a generally-useful way and the functional programming facet of F# is essentially irrelevant in this context.
The hardest problem is not detecting when you can perform subcomputations in parallel, it is determining when that will not degrade performance, i.e. when the subtasks will take sufficiently long to compute that it is worth taking the performance hit of a parallel spawn.
We have researched this in detail in the context of scientific computing and we have adopted a hybrid approach in our F# for Numerics library. Our parallel algorithms, built upon Microsoft's Task Parallel Library, require an additional parameter that is a function giving the estimated computational complexity of a subtask. This allows our implementation to avoid excessive subdivision and ensure optimal performance. Moreover, this solution is ideal for the F# programming language because the function parameter describing the complexity is typically an anonymous first-class function.
Cheers,
Jon Harrop.
I think the question misses the point of the .NET architecture-- F#, C# and VB (etc.) all get compiled to IL, which then gets compiled to machine code via the JIT compiler. The fact that a program was written in a functional language isn't relevant-- if there are optimizations (like tail recursion, etc.) available to the JIT compiler from the IL, the compiler should take advantage of it.
Naturally, this doesn't mean that writing functional code is irrelevant-- obviously, there are ways to write IL which will parallelize better-- but many of these techniques could be used in any .NET language.
So, there's no need to flag the IL as coming from F# in order to examine it for potential parallelism, nor would such a thing be desirable.
There's active research for autoparallelization and auto vectorization for a variety of languages. And one could hope (since I really like F#) that they would concive a way to determine if a "pure" side-effect free subset was used and then parallelize that.
Also since Simon Peyton-Jones the father of Haskell is working at Microsoft I have a hard time not beliving there's some fantastic stuff comming.
It's possible but unlikely. Microsoft spends most of it's time supporting and implementing features requested by their biggest clients. That usually means C#, VB.Net, and C++ (not necessarily in that order). F# doesn't seem like it's high on the list of priorities.
Microsoft is currently developing 2 avenues for parallelisation of code: PLINQ (Pararllel Linq, which owes much to functional languages) and the Task Parallel Library (TPL) which was originally part of Robotics Studio. A beta of PLINQ is available here.
I would put my money on PLINQ becoming the norm for auto-parallelisation of .NET code.
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.