6 ms·

I don't know much about Haskell, but I thought it had some properties to isolate side effects, but the code he gives: main = do cd "/tmp" m

• sbergot 12y ago
  You are right. In this case effects are not isolated. But in this particular script, there are no interesting things to move into a pure function. It does not mean that it wouldn't be the case in a more complex script. Like everything, you have to learn to balance your IO code and your pure code. A bit like learning when to factor something into a separate class, or leave it in a few statement/methods. If you write everything in IO & do notation, you don't get the main benefits of haskell. But if your code is more than 10 lines long, chances are that there will be useful pure functions in it.
  • S4M 12y ago
    I agree about the benefits of isolating side effects and IO - I generally code in python, and my code tends to look like: def main_function(args): data = get_data(args) result = do_calculations(data) push_results(result, args) Where the function do_calculations is somewhat pure - no side effects, but I do use local variables that I modify inside the function. > You are right. In this case effects are not isolated. But in this particular script, there are no interesting things to move into a pure function. It does not mean that it wouldn't be the case in a more complex script. Well, I thought that the point of Haskell (of one of its points) is that it forces the programmer to declare whatever side effect in the type of the function. But here, there is no way to know that main, on top of printing stuff, also messes up with the directory and there is no type signature indicating it - in this example it's no big deal but I could write something like: main = do rm "/" sleep 1 die "Oooops my files!"
    • sordina 12y ago
      You're right that Haskell doesn't distinguish different IO actions other than by the type they return. There are certainly libraries that do this though, although they aren't widely used. Even though Haskell doesn't distinguish different classes of IO actions, it still distinguishes IO actions from other kinds of actions (such as stateful actions as per your example), and pure computations and that provides a hell of a lot of bang for buck. The Idris language has the notion of effect types [1] to make achieving the goal of categorising the kinds of effects being used in a function easier to deal with, but that uses the dependent capabilities of the language. [1] http://eb.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/drafts/eff-tutorial.pdf http://eb.host.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/drafts/eff-tutorial.pdf
      • tel 12y ago
        > Not widely used... I use them in every single application I write, or I make my own tighter, more specific ones. They're incredibly useful in real world apps.
        • sordina 12y ago
          Sorry Tel, I didn't mean to imply that nobody uses them, more that I would guess that they are used less than 1% of the time where their inclusion could be beneficial.
          • tel 12y ago
            Ha, no offense. I just wanted to emphasize that they are used. In particular, I think they're more useful in applications than libraries and most Haskell code you can find in the wild is library code---so you end up not seeing them much.
    • sbergot 12y ago
      `main` is the entry point of the program. Its type is `IO ()`. It is a warning to omit a type signature in a top level definition, so in a normal program you would have a `main :: IO ()` type definition. The `IO` allows any kind of effect.
• zoomerang 12y ago
  Haskell functions return side-effects using the IO type, with the boilerplate plumbing being hidden with monads and do-notation. "main" in Haskell by default has a return type of "IO ()", and any "IO" values returned by that function are executed by the runtime. The end result in this case is something that just looks and feels completely imperative. but if you were to try and call, say, the "rmdir" function inside another function that didn't have an IO return type, you'd get a compile error. (More specifically, you could technically call the function, you just couldn't return the "IO" value as a result, so it couldn't perform any actions).
  • tome 12y ago
    > IO type :)
• amelius 12y ago
  Yes, the code uses the IO monad, you might want to look it up.
• lmm 12y ago
  It's in a do block, so you can see that these are not simple function calls; they're being composed via some monad. In cases where you're actually chaining values together it's more obvious which things are which: do value1 <- function1 --effectful function let value2 = function2(value1) --pure function value3 <- function3(value1, value2) --effectful function ... But the notation is a bit more magic for this "no return" case; I prefer the Scala approach where even if you don't care about the return values you'd have to write this as for { _ ← cd "/tmp" // effectful function _ ← mkdir "test" //effectful function _ = someCalculation() //pure function ...
  • Peaker 12y ago
    If you enable -Wall, Haskell forces you to use "_ <-" for any action that has a stateful result. But the "let" vs no "let" is a pretty strong hint anyway :)
    • mercurial 12y ago
      Control.Monad.void is your friend.
      • Peaker 12y ago
        Data.Functor.void you mean? :)
• tinco 12y ago
  People are talking about monads and stuff like that. No need to worry about maths and words you don't need to know. That 'do' keyword up there indicates the start of a simple DSL. The DSL goes like this, every line is the beginning of a lambda. And the result of each lambda evaluation is passed into the next lambda. So you get a sort of cascading scope of lambdas where the result of each lambda is available passed into the next. Each lambda depends on the evaluation of the previous one. Normally in Haskell functions are executed lazily, this structure forces the sequential evaluation. So what are these cd, mkdir, output etc functions? They return an object with a specific type called 'IO'. This type is monadic, but that's irrelevant for now. Haskell as you know has no side effects in the language itself. The IO type basically is a command pattern, it says "execute this I/O with these parameters". The monadic aspect of IO makes it so that at the end the commands will have accumulated in a list, of which you can get an item if you give it the results of the previous item. So that's what the main function returns, a list of commands with some lazily evaluated Haskell code in between them. Now comes the side effect part. The Haskell runtime system iterates over the list of commands and executes them. The result of each command is used to get the next command in the list. So that's the core of the magic trick of monadic I/O, you make a lazy list of I/O commands, and have something external to the language execute those I/O commands, giving the results back to the language to get the next I/O command to execute.
• omaranto 12y ago
  Haskell does not force you to indicate that a function has possible side effects in the program source code, the type of the function will however have such an indication. Here main has type IO (), and the IO indicates it can do arbitrary I/O and mutation. Haskell will infer the type for you so you don't need to declare it in the source code. So I disagree with the claim "without anything indicated by the function main", and would amend to "without anything indicated explicitly by the source code, leaving the only indication in the inferred type".
• mightybyte 12y ago
  That's because the whole block you're pointing to there is in Haskell's side effects box. So this is simply not the right example for illustrating how Haskell does isolate side effects. Shell scripts in general are very side effecting, so for this application it makes sense.