3 ms·

I've used Haskell a little. I understand the benefits of the type system from the perspective of something like a web app or libraries with abstractions. Howeve

I've used Haskell a little. I understand the benefits of the type system from the perspective of something like a web app or libraries with abstractions. However, as someone who spends their days working on numerical code in Cython for research software, how would I actually leverage the type system in my numerical code? Would I ever leverage the power of the type system and define my own types? It also seems like a terrible idea to use recursion to solve multidimensional array problems typically associated with loops and the indexing of those arrays.

axman6 9y ago
Recursion is only a bad idea in languages with poor support for recursion, it's not difficult to write efficient Haskell code which produces good assembly with fairly obvious recursive algorithms. Optimisations like stream fusion and libraries like foldl also contribute to really good code generation (not guaranteed and also not generally applicable optimisations, but certainly helpful)
- mr_overalls 9y ago
  Does Haskell provide tail-call optimization or similar optimization to take away the stack-space costs of recursive function calls?
  - Terribledactyl 9y ago
    GHC can, if you want it to. It's hard to answer in a general way because of the laziness, and you can always force evaluation. But then you rob GHC of potentially better optimizations, like never executing it in the first place. This SO does a good job of explaining the trade offs. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13042353/does-haskell-have-tail-recursive-optimization https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13042353/does-haskell-ha...
SomeStupidPoint 9y ago
You generally use the Haskell type system to define the DAG associated with the computation you want to run, and the algorithms in terms of functions applied to those DAG nodes. Since the whole DAG is naturally thought of as a big function composed of many small functions applied to slices of (intermediate) data, you can leverage higher order functions in the construction of the DAG around implementations of the numerical code written in, say, C or FORTRAN. This is actually how a lot of numerics in Python is done (or at least was, the last time I looked in to it heavily). You'd use the FFI to call out to something like C to actually execute the tensor operation, much like the TF design, where you're constructing a DAG in Python of the dataflow through tensors, which have their implementations in another language. The type system just gives you a powerful way to reason about the structure of your DAG, define higher level abstractions (eg, autoimplementing certain kinds of networks against a certain input type), or discuss the feedback of the system during training, since training is just a higher order function that takes the entire DAG function as input and returns a new DAG. (Okay, for performance reasons you generally update values, but you can model that easily enough in Haskell.) So really, basically the same way Python for numerics -- calling C for number crunching and doing algorithm designing in the higher level language.

axman6 9y ago

Recursion is only a bad idea in languages with poor support for recursion, it's not difficult to write efficient Haskell code which produces good assembly with fairly obvious recursive algorithms. Optimisations like stream fusion and libraries like foldl also contribute to really good code generation (not guaranteed and also not generally applicable optimisations, but certainly helpful)

mr_overalls 9y ago
Does Haskell provide tail-call optimization or similar optimization to take away the stack-space costs of recursive function calls?
- Terribledactyl 9y ago
  GHC can, if you want it to. It's hard to answer in a general way because of the laziness, and you can always force evaluation. But then you rob GHC of potentially better optimizations, like never executing it in the first place. This SO does a good job of explaining the trade offs. https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13042353/does-haskell-have-tail-recursive-optimization https://stackoverflow.com/questions/13042353/does-haskell-ha...

SomeStupidPoint 9y ago

You generally use the Haskell type system to define the DAG associated with the computation you want to run, and the algorithms in terms of functions applied to those DAG nodes. Since the whole DAG is naturally thought of as a big function composed of many small functions applied to slices of (intermediate) data, you can leverage higher order functions in the construction of the DAG around implementations of the numerical code written in, say, C or FORTRAN. This is actually how a lot of numerics in Python is done (or at least was, the last time I looked in to it heavily). You'd use the FFI to call out to something like C to actually execute the tensor operation, much like the TF design, where you're constructing a DAG in Python of the dataflow through tensors, which have their implementations in another language. The type system just gives you a powerful way to reason about the structure of your DAG, define higher level abstractions (eg, autoimplementing certain kinds of networks against a certain input type), or discuss the feedback of the system during training, since training is just a higher order function that takes the entire DAG function as input and returns a new DAG. (Okay, for performance reasons you generally update values, but you can model that easily enough in Haskell.) So really, basically the same way Python for numerics -- calling C for number crunching and doing algorithm designing in the higher level language.