5 ms·

Unless you want logging with timestamps.

chrisseaton 9y ago
My point was that it is not impossible to write useful programs as pure functions. You can't counter that with an example of a program that you can't write as a pure function.
- TeMPOraL 9y ago
  Ok, to clarify - I didn't mean program as in a simple function. I meant a program as in application, something that accepts some real-world input and produces some real-world consequences.
  - chrisseaton 9y ago
    Right - a compiler. That's a real-world application isn't it? A compiler can be a pure function - accepting source text as input, and producing machine code as output. Yes more complicated languages do more complicated things, but for several languages you could write a state-of-the-art compiler as a pure function.
    - TeMPOraL 9y ago
      Hm. Fair enough.
    - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
      Only if you ignore the dynamic state of the language, of associated libraries, of processor architectures, and so on - i.e. the context the compiler is working in and the mutable state of the language and development environment as a whole. The idea of pure functions is a false friend in CS because it tries to solve the problem of state by wrapping it up and wishing it away. It's true that state causes a lot of problems, but so many useful systems rely on mutable state - at practical application levels - that it might be interesting to design robust systems that manage state, context, and relationship instead of trying to create contrived examples of state-free systems. There seems to be a cognitive bias against this in CS. Most developers appear to love puzzle systems made of hard little components with solid edges, and thinking in terms of context and relationships seems to be disturbingly alien. So there aren't many programming paradigms that explicitly work with contextual inference instead of trying to rigidly delimit interfaces. But there are real prizes to be won from associative context-smart computing, and IMO the domain is wide open for innovation - because it may be possible to give up the pursuit of complete safety and predictability (which doesn't exist anyway) in return for new kinds of powerful, productive, and smart features.
      - chrisseaton 9y ago
        > Only if you ignore the dynamic state of the language, of associated libraries, of processor architectures, and so on I don't understand why any of this means you can't have a compile as a pure function. A pure function can cope with things changing internally - it just creates new data structures to represent things that have changed in the old data structures and then passes the new data structures onto the next phase. A pure function just means you can't do something like a package manager that needs to read files from disk or download things. > but so many useful systems rely on mutable state You don't have to argue this to me - I wrote the first half of my PhD on the importance of mutable state. I'm just arguing against the nonsense that it is impossible to write a useful real-world application as a pure function. I work in the VM research group at Oracle, and guess what? Our JIT compiler is basically a pure function. It takes in some bytecode and produces some machine code. It's structured a little differently in reality, but it is logically, and almost in practice, a pure function from one to the other. I'm writing a presentation about this right now.
      - flavio81 9y ago
        This is the best HN post i've read today. You should expand it into a blog post. I also agree - context and state are important and useful, because many real-life problems or processes rely on such a model and thus translate naturally when state is a "first-class citizen."
- fnord123 9y ago
  Sure, it's not impossible to write something as a pure function. But it's not an interesting statement to make unless you also apply the implied context that it may be desirable to do so. Do you think it is desirable to make these pipeline components as programs using pure functions?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
runeks 9y ago
Logging with timestamps is not in opposition to purity. All purity does is force you to change the type of a function that wants to log something, to reflect that it’s returning a value that, when evaluated at run-time, will have the side-effect of printing to the console. It’s still a pure function since it returns the same description given the same argument(s), the only difference is that when this description is evaluated by the run-time system, something will be printed to the console (in accordance with the description). In other words, you’re not restricting the effects your program can have, only how you can choose to describe them (as first-class values whose evaluation has a side-effect that is not observable by your code). It’s all explained perfectly in this talk: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/io-functional-side-effects#.WfRR_6ZtSbY.hackernews https://www.infoq.com/presentations/io-functional-side-effec...

My point was that it is not impossible to write useful programs as pure functions. You can't counter that with an example of a program that you can't write as a pure function.

TeMPOraL 9y ago
Ok, to clarify - I didn't mean program as in a simple function. I meant a program as in application, something that accepts some real-world input and produces some real-world consequences.
- chrisseaton 9y ago
  Right - a compiler. That's a real-world application isn't it? A compiler can be a pure function - accepting source text as input, and producing machine code as output. Yes more complicated languages do more complicated things, but for several languages you could write a state-of-the-art compiler as a pure function.
  - TeMPOraL 9y ago
    Hm. Fair enough.
  - TheOtherHobbes 9y ago
    Only if you ignore the dynamic state of the language, of associated libraries, of processor architectures, and so on - i.e. the context the compiler is working in and the mutable state of the language and development environment as a whole. The idea of pure functions is a false friend in CS because it tries to solve the problem of state by wrapping it up and wishing it away. It's true that state causes a lot of problems, but so many useful systems rely on mutable state - at practical application levels - that it might be interesting to design robust systems that manage state, context, and relationship instead of trying to create contrived examples of state-free systems. There seems to be a cognitive bias against this in CS. Most developers appear to love puzzle systems made of hard little components with solid edges, and thinking in terms of context and relationships seems to be disturbingly alien. So there aren't many programming paradigms that explicitly work with contextual inference instead of trying to rigidly delimit interfaces. But there are real prizes to be won from associative context-smart computing, and IMO the domain is wide open for innovation - because it may be possible to give up the pursuit of complete safety and predictability (which doesn't exist anyway) in return for new kinds of powerful, productive, and smart features.
    - chrisseaton 9y ago
      > Only if you ignore the dynamic state of the language, of associated libraries, of processor architectures, and so on I don't understand why any of this means you can't have a compile as a pure function. A pure function can cope with things changing internally - it just creates new data structures to represent things that have changed in the old data structures and then passes the new data structures onto the next phase. A pure function just means you can't do something like a package manager that needs to read files from disk or download things. > but so many useful systems rely on mutable state You don't have to argue this to me - I wrote the first half of my PhD on the importance of mutable state. I'm just arguing against the nonsense that it is impossible to write a useful real-world application as a pure function. I work in the VM research group at Oracle, and guess what? Our JIT compiler is basically a pure function. It takes in some bytecode and produces some machine code. It's structured a little differently in reality, but it is logically, and almost in practice, a pure function from one to the other. I'm writing a presentation about this right now.
    - flavio81 9y ago
      This is the best HN post i've read today. You should expand it into a blog post. I also agree - context and state are important and useful, because many real-life problems or processes rely on such a model and thus translate naturally when state is a "first-class citizen."
fnord123 9y ago
Sure, it's not impossible to write something as a pure function. But it's not an interesting statement to make unless you also apply the implied context that it may be desirable to do so. Do you think it is desirable to make these pipeline components as programs using pure functions?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

runeks 9y ago

Logging with timestamps is not in opposition to purity. All purity does is force you to change the type of a function that wants to log something, to reflect that it’s returning a value that, when evaluated at run-time, will have the side-effect of printing to the console. It’s still a pure function since it returns the same description given the same argument(s), the only difference is that when this description is evaluated by the run-time system, something will be printed to the console (in accordance with the description). In other words, you’re not restricting the effects your program can have, only how you can choose to describe them (as first-class values whose evaluation has a side-effect that is not observable by your code). It’s all explained perfectly in this talk: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/io-functional-side-effects#.WfRR_6ZtSbY.hackernews https://www.infoq.com/presentations/io-functional-side-effec...