7 ms·

> How do you have a large set of language features with them not interacting? The ability to write interesting programs in a language comes from the interactio

> How do you have a large set of language features with them not interacting? The ability to write interesting programs in a language comes from the interaction between its features. The real problem is features that interact in unpleasant ways, which almost always results from a lack of foresight on the language designer's part. > In C++, RAII interacts with exceptions, which is the point but isn't exactly pleasant. The interaction between control effects (of which exceptions are a particular case) and substructural types (of which C++'s RAII is a very broken particular case) is certainly nontrivial [0], but this doesn't mean we should give up on either feature. Control effects make it easier to design and implement extensible programs. Substructural types allow you to safely manipulate ephemeral resources, such as file handles, database connections or GUI objects. [0] http://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/~jesse/pubs/substructural-control/CtlURAL-long.pdf http://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/~jesse/pubs/substructural...

bjwbell 11y ago
Nice phrasing, unpleasant was the feeling I was going for. Sometimes I wonder about giving up.
pron 11y ago
> The interaction between control effects (of which exceptions are a particular case) and substructural types (of which C++'s RAII is a very broken particular case) is certainly nontrivial A nitpick, but what constitutes an effect is rather arbitrary. An effect in the PFP sense is not an operational definition (other than IO) but a linguistic one. This is why I think that handling errors well, handling mutation well and handling IO well are three completely different problems that are only accidentally bundled into one by PFP for no cognitive/empirical reason other than that the lambda calculus happens to be equally challenged by all three. There is a fourth effect, which is just as operational as IO (and thus a "truer" effect than errors or mutation) and is often the most interesting, yet it happens to be the one that baffles PFP/LC most: the passage of time. This is why there are usually two ways to sleep in PFP languages, one considered an effect, and the other is not (but happens to be much more operationally disruptive, and thus a stronger "effect").
- catnaroek 11y ago
  I was talking only about control effects, not I/O or mutation. Control effects are basically stylized uses of continuations, with less insanity involved.
  - pron 11y ago
    I understand. I just said that classifying non-linear transfer of control (whether exceptions or proper continuation) as an effect at all is quite arbitrary, and is just a common usage in the PFP world. Of course, substructural types are also a language concept (that does indeed interact badly with non-local jumps), which is why I said it was a nitpick about the use of the word "effect".
    - catnaroek 11y ago
      > I just said that classifying non-linear transfer of control (whether exceptions or proper continuation) as an effect at all is quite arbitrary, and is just a common usage in the PFP world. What exactly makes it arbitrary? It's pretty sensible, even if you don't have substructural types. > Of course, substructural types are also a language concept (that does indeed interact badly with non-local jumps) Control effects and substructural types don't interact “badly”. They just require care if you want them together. If you desugar control effects into delimited continuations (that is, normal higher-order functions), it becomes clear as daylight how to correctly handle their interaction with substructural types.
      - pron 11y ago
        > What exactly makes it arbitrary? The word effect in the PFP world denotes anything that a language-level function does which may affect other functions and is not an argument or a return parameter. That definition is not valid outside of PFP/LC, because it defines as effects as things that are indistinguishable from non-effects in other models of computation. E.g. it calls assignments to certain memory cells "effects" while assignments to other memory cells non-effects. Again, my (very minor) point is that the word "effect" as you use it simply denotes a PFP linguistic concept rather than an essential computational thing. The only reason I mention it is that the word "effect" has a connotation of something that's real and measurable beyond the language. That's true for IO and time (computational complexity, which, interestingly, is not generally considered an effect in PFP), but not true for jumps (or continuations) and mutation. > delimited continuations (that is, normal higher-order functions) Again, you are assuming PFP nomenclature. Delimited continuations do not require language-level functions at all, and higher-order functions can be defined in terms of delimited continuations just as the opposite is true. Delimited continuations are no more higher-order functions than higher-order functions (or monads, rather) are delimited continuations. PFP is not the only way to look at abstractions and not the only fundamental nomenclature.

bjwbell 11y ago

Nice phrasing, unpleasant was the feeling I was going for. Sometimes I wonder about giving up.

pron 11y ago

> The interaction between control effects (of which exceptions are a particular case) and substructural types (of which C++'s RAII is a very broken particular case) is certainly nontrivial A nitpick, but what constitutes an effect is rather arbitrary. An effect in the PFP sense is not an operational definition (other than IO) but a linguistic one. This is why I think that handling errors well, handling mutation well and handling IO well are three completely different problems that are only accidentally bundled into one by PFP for no cognitive/empirical reason other than that the lambda calculus happens to be equally challenged by all three. There is a fourth effect, which is just as operational as IO (and thus a "truer" effect than errors or mutation) and is often the most interesting, yet it happens to be the one that baffles PFP/LC most: the passage of time. This is why there are usually two ways to sleep in PFP languages, one considered an effect, and the other is not (but happens to be much more operationally disruptive, and thus a stronger "effect").

catnaroek 11y ago
I was talking only about control effects, not I/O or mutation. Control effects are basically stylized uses of continuations, with less insanity involved.
- pron 11y ago
  I understand. I just said that classifying non-linear transfer of control (whether exceptions or proper continuation) as an effect at all is quite arbitrary, and is just a common usage in the PFP world. Of course, substructural types are also a language concept (that does indeed interact badly with non-local jumps), which is why I said it was a nitpick about the use of the word "effect".
  - catnaroek 11y ago
    > I just said that classifying non-linear transfer of control (whether exceptions or proper continuation) as an effect at all is quite arbitrary, and is just a common usage in the PFP world. What exactly makes it arbitrary? It's pretty sensible, even if you don't have substructural types. > Of course, substructural types are also a language concept (that does indeed interact badly with non-local jumps) Control effects and substructural types don't interact “badly”. They just require care if you want them together. If you desugar control effects into delimited continuations (that is, normal higher-order functions), it becomes clear as daylight how to correctly handle their interaction with substructural types.
    - pron 11y ago
      > What exactly makes it arbitrary? The word effect in the PFP world denotes anything that a language-level function does which may affect other functions and is not an argument or a return parameter. That definition is not valid outside of PFP/LC, because it defines as effects as things that are indistinguishable from non-effects in other models of computation. E.g. it calls assignments to certain memory cells "effects" while assignments to other memory cells non-effects. Again, my (very minor) point is that the word "effect" as you use it simply denotes a PFP linguistic concept rather than an essential computational thing. The only reason I mention it is that the word "effect" has a connotation of something that's real and measurable beyond the language. That's true for IO and time (computational complexity, which, interestingly, is not generally considered an effect in PFP), but not true for jumps (or continuations) and mutation. > delimited continuations (that is, normal higher-order functions) Again, you are assuming PFP nomenclature. Delimited continuations do not require language-level functions at all, and higher-order functions can be defined in terms of delimited continuations just as the opposite is true. Delimited continuations are no more higher-order functions than higher-order functions (or monads, rather) are delimited continuations. PFP is not the only way to look at abstractions and not the only fundamental nomenclature.