Thinking Functionally with Haskell

http://pragprog.com/magazines/2012-08/thinking-functionally-with-haskell

by Toshio • 14 years ago

84 34 14 years ago

tsahyt• 14 years ago

Interestingly I've never seen the parallels between the Unix way and functional programming. But it makes perfect sense. Code programs/functions that do one thing and do them well. However, that's how code should work in general. That's what we got functions/methods for in the first place.

I agree, functional programming is great but sometimes I just see ideas being sold as "functional" that apply to programming in general. Splitting programs into smaller parts that are easily solvable and work in a predictable way is one of the most fundamental parts of coding.

Sure, that's not all there is to it, but I'm a little bothered that it's being marketed as the new thing.

samdk• 14 years ago

The parallels to Unix are strong enough that having an actual pipe operator can be very useful. I frequently write code that looks something like this:

    List.map data ~f:(fun elem -> ...)
    |! List.find ~f:( ... )
    |! Option.map ~f:( ... )

(This is OCaml, not Haskell, but the syntax is similar.) The definition of the '|!' operator is quite simple:

    let (|!) x f = f x

IvoDankolov• 14 years ago

Yes, in fact F# has that built in as |> , which I've taken to using in Haskell as well. Though it's a bit more intuitive to me when it has the lowest precedence like so:

    (|>) :: a -> (a->b) -> b
    (|>) x f = f x
    infixl 0 |>

There infixl 0 means infix operator with left associativity and 0 precedence.

Then you can use all sorts of expressions inbetween:

     (5 + 3 |> show) ++ " times" |> putStrLn

Also, tying this back to one of the article's ideas, this piping-like syntax for doing things really manages to take away the emphasis from the function and put it back on the data. It isn't all about functions after all!

minikomi• 14 years ago

Using -> and ->> in clojure also feels pretty close to this, and can clean up over-nested blobs very quickly.

Eg:

  (reduce + (take 10 (filter even? (map #(* % %) (range)))))
 
 Can be expressed as:

   (->> (range)
    (map #(* % %))
    (filter even?)
    (take 10)
    (reduce +))

draegtun• 14 years ago

In Perl6 this is called the Feed Operator: http://perlcabal.org/syn/S03.html#Feed_operators

Toshio• 14 years ago

I think the first time I've seen someone make that connection was when I watched the Haskell presentation @ GoogleTechTalks.

gtani2• 14 years ago

Here's a more detailed

http://book.realworldhaskell.org/read/code-case-study-parsin...

(also you can read about the F# (|>) forward pipe, and there'll be operator precedence/associativity and thunk forcing issues)

batista• 14 years ago

Well, speaking of the Unix philosophy, this could possibly blow your mind. It's tens of Unix command line tools (well, the gist of them, not every functionality), implemented in a few lines of Haskell:

http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Simple_unix_tools

jeffdavis• 14 years ago

I think one of the differences is pipelining/laziness, which makes it easier to decompose problems into smaller pieces.

For instance, look at his solution to FizzBuzz. Would you use a similar solution in ruby? He uses an infinite list, so if you naively translated it, you'd run out of memory. Instead, you'd have to explicitly use a generator in order to achieve a similar solution.

Of course, you can try always returning a generator in ruby, but that would be incredibly awkward because the built-in operators compute the entire result (like the + operator on lists). So, in practice, people intuitively avoid creating large intermediate results because it's wasteful, even in cases where that would simplify the code and make it more modular.

But in haskell, go ahead and use the large intermediate result, because it won't actually compute it before returning. It will just return a generator for the large intermediate result, and compute only the parts of that large result that are needed.

tmhedberg2• 14 years ago

In fact, with compiler optimizations such as GHC's stream fusion, the intermediate result may never actually exist at all.

stonemetal2• 14 years ago

True, but my limited experience in Haskell, and Ocaml says FP makes it harder to do the wrong thing. It is really hard to write a large Haskell function(on the order of 100s of lines of code.) I am not sure I could do it without breaking the function up in to a bunch of sub functions in a where clause, which is a case I am not even sure I would count since each of those sub functions could be moved out of the parent function with no change in functionality. Whereas my experience in C and C++ points to it being easy to write functions that run in to the low thousands.

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

I wish PragProg would do a (whole) book one Haskell. The current ones just aren't very good.

Books such as "Real World Haskell", the "gentle guide" and "Yet Another Haskell Tutorial" all manage the rather unbelievable feat of making many Haskell concepts unnecessarily complex, unintuitive and hard to understand -- not something you want for a language that is already on the complex side. For example, RWH goes into an absurdly complicated sample scenario (a parser, iirc) to introduce the reader to monads, and never slows down to go back to first principles. YAHT does the same thing.

Monads have a reputation for being hard to understand, but I think this is mostly the fault of the current literature; monads are conceptually simple, yet every book manages to botch their explanation, making the learning curve particularly steep for non-FP programmers.

acomar• 14 years ago

Have you tried Learn You A Haskell? It's a gentle and humorous introduction to the language, and I rather like it's take on the more important typeclasses. As for monads in particular, I think the best introduction is "You Could Have Invented Monads."

tmhedberg2• 14 years ago

Have you tried Learn You a Haskell for Great Good (http://learnyouahaskell.com/)? It's not as comprehensive or full of practical examples as something like RWH, but as an introductory text, I think it does a better job than any other Haskell book I've come across at keeping challenging concepts understandable.

SkyMarshal• 14 years ago

As an introductory text it actually does a better job than just about anything I've read. I'd rank it up there with The Little Schemer series for learning some aspects of functional programming. Miran is very good at explaining and writing.

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

I had forgotten all about that. I agree, it's very good. Its chapter on monads is decent, iirc. But the book is also quite light, being a basic intro to the language, and doesn't get into a lot of things you'd want to learn in order to actually get stuff done (concurrent programming, networking etc.).

stonemetal2• 14 years ago

What example do you think would be good?

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

This [1] was the explanation which finally made monads "click" for me. You can think of the IO monad as a way to force a compile-time dependency between I/O operations by having each IO-performing function take a "baton" value (the "IO" instance) as an argument, as well as return it. The explanation of how Haskell retains the appearance of purity in the face of impure I/O by passing an instance of RealWorld around is genius. That's a brilliant way to start out explaining monads, and it's something simple that you can use to explain the other monads such as the state monad (which the IO monad is built on).

[1] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/IO_inside

agumonkey• 14 years ago

Most of the mathematical culture inherited by haskell can be learned somehow elsewhere. Disclaimer, I'm quite a noob, but I'm pretty sure sicp/little schemer are good complementary sources on the spirit of haskell.

About monads, seeing them outside of Haskell is a great way to see smaller steps. Articles like http://dorophone.blogspot.fr/2011/04/deep-emacs-part-1.html , or this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObR3qi4Guys

I hope it will help you

spacemanaki• 14 years ago

I think parsers are a decent way to introduce monads, and I really like the way Graham Hutton's Programming Haskell does it, by demonstrating parsing without even using the word monad, and then in a later chapter on IO, saying "oh hey and this thing is called a monad and we used it once before!"

And I disagree a bit about RWH... I'm in the middle of it now I think it's great, filled with meaty examples that aren't too complicated at all and are generally pretty concrete. Maybe I'm just not far enough in yet? There are bits where it goes off into the weeds (the chapter on JSON goes so far as to fiddle about with character encoding IIRC) but I just can't imagine a PragProg book could do much better, without sacrificing depth.

boothead• 14 years ago

I actually find parsing to be a better example of Applicative than Monad.

T_S_• 14 years ago

Hutton's book is excellent (and thin!). Work through that and you will learn about some deep stuff without even realizing it.

Evbn• 14 years ago

RWH is way obsolete. Its own authors have written libraries that deprecate the ones they recommend in the book.

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

The problem is that RWH teaches Haskell with "real world" examples that actually do useful stuff (such as the JSON chapter), and high-level theoretical concepts such as functors and monads are subtle and complicated enough, especially for FP newbies, that they need to be taught from first principles, not by wading into the deep end by showing a real-world implementation of a parser.

Personally, my "eureka" moment was reading the "IO Inside" [1] page on the Haskell wiki, which explains the IO monad in a way that made it click for me, as a imperatively-trained programmer. You can think of the IO monad as a way to force a compile-time dependency between I/O operations by having each IO-performing function take a "baton" value (the "IO" instance) as an argument, as well as return it. The explanation of how Haskell retains the appearance of purity in the face of impure I/O by passing an instance of RealWorld around is genius. That's a brilliant way to start out explaining monads, and it's something simple that you can use to explain the other monads such as the state monad (which the IO monad is built on).

I haven't tried the Hutton book yet.

[1] http://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/IO_inside

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

Please don't downvote just because you disagree with someone's opinion.

paulcc3• 14 years ago

I agree that a more pragmatic approach is needed, which is why I started writing this series on FP.

What else would you like to see in such a book? http://forums.pragprog.com/posts/30455

lobster_johnson6• 14 years ago

Your link doesn't work (404).

Personally, I like the "Learn You A Haskell" style, of carefully and very gently building up the basic language, with examples that are as simple as possible and deal with only the issue being discussed. My problem with Real World Haskell is that it combines learning the language with building stuff. So when it gets to something like monads, there are way too much noise surrounding the core concept being explained. It's fine to show practical examples, but not everything should be built on them.

Aside from that, I like the practically-oriented stuff in RWH. I would like to see an article on doing concurrent, parallel, distributed systems (Erlang-style) in Haskell.

paulcc3• 14 years ago

Did anyone notice that I only mentioned monads once in the article? (NB a mistake upstream meant some material was dropped. There was a nice para there about "I remember the time before monads... We did the same stuff, only it was a bit clumsier...")

Monads are a useful technique, but they aren't everything!

flazzarino2• 14 years ago

i'd like to see somebody think non-functionally with haskell

dbaupp• 14 years ago

Like this: http://kormacode.blogspot.se/2011/11/c-style-haskell_10.html ?

flazzarino2• 14 years ago

i liked it, thanks

3amOpsGuy• 14 years ago

Wow, I attended a university synonymous with Haskell. 15 mins of reading here and I've just had an epiphany that eluded me in all those years.

A most insightful post, thank you very much.

Thinking Functionally with Haskell

Related Stories