5 ms·

I'm just an old country imperative programmer, not a big city functional programmer, so excuse my ignorance, but I had an ephiphany the other day. Functional pr

I'm just an old country imperative programmer, not a big city functional programmer, so excuse my ignorance, but I had an ephiphany the other day. Functional programmers with strict types organize their data with complex types, while I do the same with classes. I need to do more research to verify this, but it explains the focus on types in functional languages to me.

js8 1y ago
One of the core concepts in type theory is the function type. It's a kind of building block. So perhaps better would be to say functional programmers organize everything using functions. I suggest you look at simply typed lambda calculus, it gives a basic rationalization of types in functional programming.
Twey 1y ago
Typically when an OOP programmer says the word ‘class’ they mean one (or both) of two things, depending on their favourite OOP language: - a factory for objects, that hides some internal state of the object; - a static construct that gives a name to some (‘public’) subset of the behaviour of those objects, and which a type-checker can then use to ensure that the use of the objects adheres to the intended contract. They're both mechanisms for encapsulation of internal behaviour (that may change at any time) while providing a blessed public API that you promise will stay the same (or at least only change in certain ways, under a strict discipline like semver or ‘we'll tell you on the mailing list’). The difference is that the former is runtime (dynamic) behaviour, while the latter is compile-time (static) behaviour. The former maps to functions (or, with state, closures), not types, in functional languages (see ‘objects are a poor man's closures, and vice versa’ [1]), and the latter… is types :) The same typing concept that ensures correct interaction with objects can also be used to ensure correct interaction with functions or other data types, though since functional languages are easier to type than OO languages strictly-typed functional languages tend to have stronger type systems that capture more properties, like effects. [1]: https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/... From one perspective, there's a spectrum imperative <-> procedural <-> OOP <-> functional that is about how tightly scoped state changes are. In that view, functional languages are just the natural next step: if the whole point of OOP is to scope state, a functional language is just an OOP language with _even more_ tightly scoped state. The philosophy (uncontrolled state changes are scary and hard to reason about: add language constructs that allow the reader to see at a glance how far they have to look for the knock-on effects of a given state changes) is the same, just the implementation is different.
- labrador 1y ago
  Thanks for the thoughtful response. As you know, I was drawing a parallel between the compile-time contract that a class provides and the role of complex types in functional programming. In many cases, a module that defines data types alongside functions operating on them feels similar to a class that encapsulates both structure and behavior. I realize there are deeper distinctions and advantages on the functional side, but I’m just trying to simplify and compare the basic conceptual building blocks. I also really liked your spectrum from imperative to functional. It's a helpful framing.
  - Twey 1y ago
    No you're totally right! In fact I think you're even more right than you said in the original post: the analogy you draw isn't just an analogy, they are in fact the exact same thing. A class is (amongst other things) a module, and a closure, and a type. In functional programming these things are (usually!) deconstructed rather than all being facets of the ‘class’ concept, but they're all still there and they all work exactly the same way as in OOP (perhaps modulo mutability, depending on choice of languages — but you can see local mutability as syntax sugar over function calls anyway).
analog31 1y ago
Likewise here. After BASIC, I learned Pascal, in the early 80s. We were taught the principle that if you designed your data types right, the rest of the program would practically write itself. What I can't tell you is if data types in computer programs are related to type theory.
- derriz 1y ago
  Yeah I think there’s some confusion here. When I hear “type theory” - I think Martin-Löf, Girard’s Proofs and Types, Curry-Howard, etc. Which is not a “theory of programming language types” - although the subjects are not completely isolated from each other. Then again, it’s been decades since I actually studied this stuff and haven’t really followed either subject since. As far as the latter is concerned (programming language type systems), as an engineer, I’ve seen nothing in mainstream programming languages that advances the state-of-the-art compared to what was known back in the 1980s - when Hindley-Milner became mainstream and Luca Cardelli wrote the seminal survey papers on the subject.
- mindcrime 1y ago
  What I can't tell you is if data types in computer programs are related to type theory. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that there is some relation between the two notions. But I couldn't even begin to quantify the strength of that relation, or explain any of the details. Which is sort of what led me down this path in the first place. Some random thing I read got me thinking that deeper knowledge of type theory could be useful from an AI perspective, and that led me down the rabbit hole of looking for info on type theory. And from what I've read so far, it seems like type theory (more so than, say, set theory, or maybe even category theory) is "closer" in some sense to computer science and does in some sense relate to how types (as used in programming languages) can be constructed and reasoned about. I have a lot more to learn, needless to say. :-)
Tainnor 1y ago
In a statically-typed language like Java, every class is a type - though not vice-versa, since things like interfaces and records (in Java) are also types. Non-OOP statically typed languages are basically just saying "ok that's fine, but there's no need to attach state or behaviour to types".
lmm 1y ago
Not all functional programming styles emphasise types so much - Lisp-based languages may not even have types at all. To my mind classes conflate several different things, and a lot of the benefits of functional style is to unpick those different things and let you approach them separately: - Basic compound data structures (product types). Most imperative languages don't have sum types, which is the root of a lot of problems in that style - Interfaces (some more enlightened imperative languages separate these out) and the adapter/impl/typeclass/what-have-you that ties together an implementation of that interface for that datastructure - Mutable references - some way of associating an identity or name with a value that can be switched for a different value accessed via the same identity/name

js8 1y ago

One of the core concepts in type theory is the function type. It's a kind of building block. So perhaps better would be to say functional programmers organize everything using functions. I suggest you look at simply typed lambda calculus, it gives a basic rationalization of types in functional programming.

Twey 1y ago

Typically when an OOP programmer says the word ‘class’ they mean one (or both) of two things, depending on their favourite OOP language: - a factory for objects, that hides some internal state of the object; - a static construct that gives a name to some (‘public’) subset of the behaviour of those objects, and which a type-checker can then use to ensure that the use of the objects adheres to the intended contract. They're both mechanisms for encapsulation of internal behaviour (that may change at any time) while providing a blessed public API that you promise will stay the same (or at least only change in certain ways, under a strict discipline like semver or ‘we'll tell you on the mailing list’). The difference is that the former is runtime (dynamic) behaviour, while the latter is compile-time (static) behaviour. The former maps to functions (or, with state, closures), not types, in functional languages (see ‘objects are a poor man's closures, and vice versa’ [1]), and the latter… is types :) The same typing concept that ensures correct interaction with objects can also be used to ensure correct interaction with functions or other data types, though since functional languages are easier to type than OO languages strictly-typed functional languages tend to have stronger type systems that capture more properties, like effects. [1]: https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/msg03277.html https://people.csail.mit.edu/gregs/ll1-discuss-archive-html/... From one perspective, there's a spectrum imperative <-> procedural <-> OOP <-> functional that is about how tightly scoped state changes are. In that view, functional languages are just the natural next step: if the whole point of OOP is to scope state, a functional language is just an OOP language with _even more_ tightly scoped state. The philosophy (uncontrolled state changes are scary and hard to reason about: add language constructs that allow the reader to see at a glance how far they have to look for the knock-on effects of a given state changes) is the same, just the implementation is different.

labrador 1y ago
Thanks for the thoughtful response. As you know, I was drawing a parallel between the compile-time contract that a class provides and the role of complex types in functional programming. In many cases, a module that defines data types alongside functions operating on them feels similar to a class that encapsulates both structure and behavior. I realize there are deeper distinctions and advantages on the functional side, but I’m just trying to simplify and compare the basic conceptual building blocks. I also really liked your spectrum from imperative to functional. It's a helpful framing.
- Twey 1y ago
  No you're totally right! In fact I think you're even more right than you said in the original post: the analogy you draw isn't just an analogy, they are in fact the exact same thing. A class is (amongst other things) a module, and a closure, and a type. In functional programming these things are (usually!) deconstructed rather than all being facets of the ‘class’ concept, but they're all still there and they all work exactly the same way as in OOP (perhaps modulo mutability, depending on choice of languages — but you can see local mutability as syntax sugar over function calls anyway).

analog31 1y ago

Likewise here. After BASIC, I learned Pascal, in the early 80s. We were taught the principle that if you designed your data types right, the rest of the program would practically write itself. What I can't tell you is if data types in computer programs are related to type theory.

derriz 1y ago
Yeah I think there’s some confusion here. When I hear “type theory” - I think Martin-Löf, Girard’s Proofs and Types, Curry-Howard, etc. Which is not a “theory of programming language types” - although the subjects are not completely isolated from each other. Then again, it’s been decades since I actually studied this stuff and haven’t really followed either subject since. As far as the latter is concerned (programming language type systems), as an engineer, I’ve seen nothing in mainstream programming languages that advances the state-of-the-art compared to what was known back in the 1980s - when Hindley-Milner became mainstream and Luca Cardelli wrote the seminal survey papers on the subject.
mindcrime 1y ago
What I can't tell you is if data types in computer programs are related to type theory. I'm far from an expert on this, but my understanding is that there is some relation between the two notions. But I couldn't even begin to quantify the strength of that relation, or explain any of the details. Which is sort of what led me down this path in the first place. Some random thing I read got me thinking that deeper knowledge of type theory could be useful from an AI perspective, and that led me down the rabbit hole of looking for info on type theory. And from what I've read so far, it seems like type theory (more so than, say, set theory, or maybe even category theory) is "closer" in some sense to computer science and does in some sense relate to how types (as used in programming languages) can be constructed and reasoned about. I have a lot more to learn, needless to say. :-)

Tainnor 1y ago

In a statically-typed language like Java, every class is a type - though not vice-versa, since things like interfaces and records (in Java) are also types. Non-OOP statically typed languages are basically just saying "ok that's fine, but there's no need to attach state or behaviour to types".

lmm 1y ago

Not all functional programming styles emphasise types so much - Lisp-based languages may not even have types at all. To my mind classes conflate several different things, and a lot of the benefits of functional style is to unpick those different things and let you approach them separately: - Basic compound data structures (product types). Most imperative languages don't have sum types, which is the root of a lot of problems in that style - Interfaces (some more enlightened imperative languages separate these out) and the adapter/impl/typeclass/what-have-you that ties together an implementation of that interface for that datastructure - Mutable references - some way of associating an identity or name with a value that can be switched for a different value accessed via the same identity/name