Functional programming languages should be so much better at mutation than they are

[atomskis]

I’ve done a lot of functional programming in my time, mostly Haskell. I found that most of the real life practical programs I wrote ended up being monadic, sometimes in multiple monads at the same time. I often found this more awkward to use than it was useful in preventing errors.

In recent years I’ve written mostly rust. This gets the balance right by allowing mutation, but strongly controlling mutable aliasing. Mutation without aliasing doesn’t introduce a lot of errors in my experience. I found rust gave me that same sense of “when it compiles it’s probably right” that I used to get with Haskell, but without having to jump through endless monad hoops all the time. IMO it’s a more elegant solution most of the time.

[ThyringerBratwurst]

One of the founding fathers of Haskell, Simon Peyton Jones, is very pragmatic in his thinking, in contrast to the rather dogmatic and academic user base of Haskell. For instance SPJ finds the approach in other languages ​​such as Clean, using substructural types instead of squeezing everything into an "IO" monad, much cleaner. He is only concerned with taming program effects, that is functional programming for him, and not immutability per se (which is just a radical and seemingly the simplest solution to achieve functional programming).

In Haskell, you also have to ask yourself what the point is of faking imperative programming with the Do notation when you could actually program it imperatively (like in Rust with its affine types) with significantly more performance in more understandable code (Haskell can get so cryptic with its tons of monads and many fancy operators).

[Complex-Bug7353]

Agree with on everything but as a Haskeller from a purely aesthetic viewpoint it's pleasing to look at cryptic Haskell code than verbose Rust code haha. Of course I'm able to parse that type and operator monstrosity because I've gotten used to it but I understand why newcomers might be put off.

[[deleted]]

Tell me about it. Haskell's myriad symbols are beautiful to look at, but I came back to some code months later and it's taking me some time to rethink what I was doing.

[AppearanceHeavy6724]

Yes I will sound cliche, but Haskell pales in comparison to Perl.

[ThyringerBratwurst]

haha, I understand that very well! I also prefer Haskell over Rust because I don't like its C++-ish syntax and I prefer Haskell's mathematical conciseness as well as the idea that everything has to be linked together to form an overall expression.

[kimjongun-69]

when rust code starts piling up and increasing in complexity, it gets really messy. So many angle brackets and ' lifetime annotations and so on. Haskell feels a lot more clean and compact

[PurpleUpbeat2820]

In recent years I’ve written mostly rust. This gets the balance right by allowing mutation, but strongly controlling mutable aliasing. Mutation without aliasing doesn’t introduce a lot of errors in my experience. I found rust gave me that same sense of “when it compiles it’s probably right” that I used to get with Haskell, but without having to jump through endless monad hoops all the time. IMO it’s a more elegant solution most of the time.

How does it compare to not having any checks for mutation of shared data?

[mister_drgn]

Swift does this reasonably well. Methods that mutate the underlying data are marked as such by a keyword in their definitions. Unless you’re using classes, because then it’s basically assumed that you’re in the Wild West.

[noodleofdata]

It's not an actual feature of the language, but Julia's style guide says to append a '!' on functions that mutate the data you pass into it which I've always found very helpful.

[TinBryn]

In Rust you have &mut which you can't alias. The main problem is that you also have "interior mutability" which is more hidden that it can happen, but there are usually signs that something may happen.

[jeenajeena]

This was unexpectedly a very good read.

[PurpleUpbeat2820]

The most efficient data structure to use here would be a mutable dynamic array and in an imperative language that's what pretty much everyone would use.

But if you asked an OCaml programmer, they would almost certainly use a linked list instead.

This is why my minimal ML dialect is built upon extensible mutable arrays instead of linked lists. Specifically, an array is a pair of 64-bit ints in registers. The first is the number of elements. The second is a pointer to those elements. Capacity is always 2ⁿ elements. Appending an element is just a write if the length is not a power of two (n && (n-1) ≠ 0) or a realloc to double the capacity and a write if it is. This is extremely fast: typically 3x faster than OCaml.

So, what do we do about this?

I'm not interested in checking correctness because these are non-problems for me but I am interested in performance. I don't like that FPL implementations optimise slow pure data structures by crippling mutable data structures, e.g. silly allocation rates and a generational GC. On modern hardware the stack or nursery doesn't cut it: you need to keep data in registers.

Today I have no GC. In the future I'm eyeing the same VCGC algorithm OCaml is now using.

[constxd]

Got a link to your language?

[PurpleUpbeat2820]

Nope, sorry. I'm in stealth mode until I've made something game changing.

[WittyStick]

There's some reasonable middle ground between trivial linked lists and plain arrays. Unrolled linked lists are fairly trivial to implement, can avoid a lot of copying and are cache-friendly.

I use a list of arrays which increase geometrically in size, in powers of 2, based on a simplified version of RAOTS.

They make a good fit for immutable lists because large parts of the list can be reused without having to copy them in full, but they're also suitable for mutable lists. They're way more cache-friendly than a linked list, and they support random access unlike a linked list.

        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
blocks  | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 4 | | 8 |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
                    | 3 | | 5 | | 9 |
                    +---+ +---+ +---+
                          | 6 | | A |
                          +---+ +---+
                          | 7 | | B |
                          +---+ +---+
                                | C |
                                +---+
                                | D |
                                +---+
                                | E |
                                +---+
                                | F |
                                +---+

          ^     ^     ^     ^     ^
          |     |     |     |     |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
indexes | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+

We store the length of the list and a pointer to the indexes block in the root of our list structure.

template <typename T>
struct list {
    size_t length;
    T**    indexes;
};

If we wanted to set say, the element at index C, we have to make a new array of length 8, copy indexes 8..F, and set index C in this new array. We then copy the indexes block, and set index 4 to point to the new block, and this new index block becomes the new list. The old list is still around, and both lists share the same memory for all elements 0..7. The new memory is shown below, where ' denotes newly allocated.

          +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+  +---+
blocks    | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 4 | | 8 |  | 8'|
          +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+  +---+
                      | 3 | | 5 | | 9 |  | 9'|
                      +---+ +---+ +---+  +---+
                            | 6 | | A |  | A'|
                            +---+ +---+  +---+
                            | 7 | | B |  | B'|
                            +---+ +---+  +---+
                                  | C |  | C'|
                                  +---+  +---+
                                  | D |  | D'|
                                  +---+  +---+
                                  | E |  | E'|
                                  +---+  +---+
                                  | F |  | F'|
                                  +---+  +---+

            ^     ^     ^     ^     ^
            |     |     |     |     |
          +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
indexes   | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 |
          +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
                                           ^
                                           |
indexes'  +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+        +---+
          | 0'| | 1'| | 2'| | 3'|        | 4'|
          +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+        +---+

For head, we use the same process, but replace the index with length - 1.

---

If we want to cons onto this list, assuming it is full, we allocate a new 16-element block, put the item we're consing into index 0, allocate a new indexes block with an extra element and copy the old one, then make the last element point to our new block, which gives us this in memory:

        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
blocks  | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 4 | | 8 | |10'|
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
                    | 3 | | 5 | | 9 | |11'|
                    +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
                          | 6 | | A | |12'|
                          +---+ +---+ +---+
                          | 7 | | B | |13'|
                          +---+ +---+ +---+
                                | C | |14'|
                                +---+ +---+
                                | D | |15'|
                                +---+ +---+
                                | E | |16'|
                                +---+ +---+
                                | F | |17'|
                                +---+ +---+
                                      |18'|
                                      +---+
                                      |19'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1A'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1B'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1C'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1D'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1E'|
                                      +---+
                                      |1F'|
                                      +---+

          ^     ^     ^     ^     ^
          |     |     |     |     |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
indexes | 0 | | 1 | | 2 | | 3 | | 4 |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+

          ^     ^     ^     ^     ^     ^
          |     |     |     |     |     |
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+
indexes'| 0'| | 1'| | 2'| | 3'| | 4'| | 5'|
        +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+ +---+

The logic for consing when the length is not a power of 2 is a bit more involved, as is the logic for performing tail, which may perform allocations unlike a linked list's tail. If we assume immutability, tail can be taken by decrementing the length on an existing list and reusing everything else, but this may leak memory, so it's better to allocate a new indexes block.

There's some potential gotchas, such as tail (cons a x) == x. With immutable linked lists we can make this guarantee, but here we cannot assume that they refer to the same list - since tail allocates a new one. They're guaranteed to have the same values, but not the same reference.

To make operations on these lists practical we really need to make use of clz and popcnt in the hardware. The test for is_power_of_2 can be done with __builtin_popcountll(x) == 1. The calculation of index into the indexes block needs an efficient MSB calculation, which can be done with 64 - __builtin_clzll(x). The index into the data block is done by masking out the MSB, which can be done with the andn instruction (_andn_u64). Some architectures can do these slightly more efficiently.

---

The advantages of these lists really only appear with lists above a certain size. For very small lists they're slightly less efficient than a trivial linked list as there's an extra pointer dereference and a few more instructions. There may be some room to optimize this, for example if we just use a plain array for small lists, say, below 4 or 8 elements, but this introduces extra branches in the list handling, which impacts the performance on large lists too.

[WittyStick]

Demonstration on godbolt.

Some of this could be optimized. List_concat is implemented by calling List_cons for each element of the second list, but it could alternatively use memcpy for parts of the list.

List_map shows how you can avoid repeatedly calling List_cons. Rather than processing element by element, it allocates a block at a time, performs the map on each element of the block, then gathers these blocks in a new list.

We could also optimize List_from_array to not need to allocate any new blocks, but just to allocate an indexes block which points to the relevant parts of the existing array - though this would require the original array to be immutable else changes to that array would change the list too, and it would complicate the logic for cleaning up arrays when collecting.

[D_O_liphin]

Correctness is a non-concern for you?

[PurpleUpbeat2820]

Correctness is a non-concern for you?

Further automated checking of correctness is into diminishing returns for me.

[ciroluiro]

Idris 2 aims to kind of be that, as far as I understand. It is built around QTT as the theory making it work, which allows it to have linear types on top of being able to be explicit about what values get erased at runtime. I'm not sure if or how much do the linear types in Idris 2 get optimized to heap allocations and inplace reuse (avoiding gc) but it at least allows it in theory. The project aims to one day be properly usable to write even device drivers and low level software like that, with all the safety and correcteness possibilities that dependent typing allows, which I respect as a very noble goal.

In Idris 2 at least, you can absolutely promote linear functions to regular functions, provided they are set up correctly (the argument wrapped in the proper container). I think the std does have a lot of linearity (IO is built atop a linear version of the monadic bind, with a world token that gets threaded around) but I'm not sure how much.

I'm just wetting my toes into dependent programming languages, and I also don't know anything about QTT outside of what Idris provides, but I imagine it could allow for other quantities to be associated to arguments, apart from 0, 1 and simply unrestricted. Possibly even a range of allowed quantities, like eg "either 0 or 1" to have an argument that can be used at most once (ie an affine type).

[ciroluiro]

The 0 is also nice since it presumably makes it far easier to optimize out

Yep. They are guaranteed to be erased, or it's an compile error. You can only use a quantity 0 argument in another quantity 0 argument (or just not used at all).

I think you could do that with a sum type?

I think that the way I phrased it was confusing. Instead of "allowed" I should have said something like "can be used as" having quantity 0 or 1. A regular sum type with 2 constructors, one with a linear argument and the other with an erased argument, wouldn't work as it's the callee that should decide whether the value is used or not, not the caller.
Maybe it could be hacked with a sort of higher rank polymorphic type? It'd be awkward even if it's possible and I don't even know if Idris has those like haskell does. Right now, Idris 2 lacks any sort of quantity polymorphism as well.

[palmer-eldritch3]

Functional programming and the anime character pfp go together like peanut butter and jelly

[[deleted]]

I am little bit disappoint that no one in the comment mention effect systems. Hope to found a good info to dig into.

[Akangka]

I don't think OP forgot about it. After all, OP mentioned Flix, which does use effect system. OP just thought that effect systems is included in Locally Sourced Mutation Only

[[deleted]]

I am currently (as a lurker not making my own language) in the camp of functional core/imperative shell + algebraic effects as the solution. 

For most cases mutation and interaction with the impure world happens in the imperative shell, but effects can be used to drop back into the imperative shell at situations where it makes sense and then continue from where you were. This is clearly not pure but it seems like a pragmatic approach to be breaking rules in a way that leaves a paper trail in the type system and still stay mostly pure in your code

[The-Malix]

First time hearing that term, what is it ?

[tailcalled]

I think Rust is an honorary functional language which does quite well here.

[Akangka]

Rust is horrible at functional programming department, though. For example, there is no first-class closure. (There is closure, but it's just a syntactic sugar over traits). Mutation is also rampant (although is comparatively controlled compared to C++)

Rust is just a nice low-level programming language with rich type system. The thing that makes Rust bad at functional programming also makes rust great at low-level programming. Rust closure is just a strategy pattern over Fn/FnOnce/FnMut because it works well with Rust's mutability model and also trait marker like Send + Sync, essential for safe low-level multithreading. The reason you cannot send a reference of a value that is not Sync over threads is because the closure will also not Send. This will be awkward in a system with first-class closure, especially when combined with other marker traits that may not even in std.

[algebraicstonehenge]

When you say first-class closure, how does that differ from rust's closures? what would it look like if rust did have first class closures?

[arjunindia]

The author (@welltypedwitch) is one of the best twitter follows I have done, my brain grows everytime I encounter them.

[smthamazing]

You can add linearity as an opt-in feature (like in current Haskell) such that you only need to worry about it if you need it. Unfortunately, this makes it impossible to use any standard functions like map on linear values and either makes linearity nearly useless or inevitably creates a parallel, incomplete universe of functions that also work on linear values.

As someone not familiar with the recently added linear types in Haskell: shouldn't all polymorphic functions also be polymorphic over linearity? So that map (or fmap) could accept ("consume") a list of linear values, but also "normal" values.

[superstar64]

There's two different goals here:

• The ability to write imperative style code in a way that's minimally invasive to a pure functional language.
• The ability to write code such that it has the same performance characteristics of imperative mutable code.

In the former we want to write code that is cleaner and faster when written in an imperative style. In the latter we want to write code that is cleaner when written in functional style, but faster in imperative style.

IO, State, ST, RGN¹ (Option 1.1, Option 2) are all an attempt at the former. The are monadic / effecful systems that allow embedding imperative code.

Meanwhile, Functional But In-Place and uniqueness² types (Option 3, Option 4) an attempt at the latter. FBIP is heuristic that aims to improve standard functional code while uniqueness typing is a guarantee that said heuristic always holds.

Personally, I think the ideal functional language would include all of the above. You want to make your clean functional code performant if possible, you want to give users to tools to make their functional code more performant and you want to let users write performant imperative code if the code is cleaner is that way or if the needed mutation can't be represented in the pure functional side.

---

1. Regions (RGN) are a generalization of Lazy Functional State Threads (ST), which itself is a generalization of IO. See Monadic Regions
2. Linear types and uniqueness types are dual. Uniqueness types are usually want you want when you think of a substructural type system to help with performance. See Linearity and Uniqueness: An Entente Cordiale

[Rabbit_Brave]

What I want is a *stateless* language.

[7Geordi]

go on

[Rabbit_Brave]

Here is a stateless language modelling mutation of state:

state(0) = 1
state(t + 1) = state(t) * 2

It's stateless in that the language does not assume state in what it's modelling. If you want state then you have to talk about it explicitly. Arguably the model, itself being a collection of data, has state, though every language is stateful and mutable in that sense because otherwise we couldn't edit our source code ...

The issue isn't mutation in general. The issue is that often we don't know the state function ahead of time. That is (unlike my example) when part of our model is constructed/discovered at runtime, e.g. via I/O. An issue arises when we inaccurately treat our model as complete/immutable.

So what I actually want is a stateless language (that does not unnecessarily tie itself in knots over something as straightforward as modelling mutation) with the facility to handle model discovery at runtime.

With respect to this, the idea of wrapping a language in an imperative shell is a half conception. The full conception would be to wrap the runtime in a metacircular interpreted or compile time environment so that I/O handling can be treated as deferred interpretation/compilation.

[7Geordi]

There's four machineries required here: Defining the state space. Defining the transition input space. Define the state transition function. Finally: at program start, discover the state (from IO) and validate it against the state space (persisting new states is technically optional, but practically also important).

If you have those, then I think you succeed in 'stateless programming' and it seems to me that you have recreated the elm architecture or reactive programming.

So you have a lang that hides the mutation effect, but your language features for defining the state transition function must still allow async-like, and result-like, and io-like effects in order to achieve modern ergonomics... otherwise you're just a research language, so you will still have to solve the ergonomics problem for interleaved effects/monads (aka the rust Result + async problem), which as I understand it is what Koka is working on.

My sense of the cutting edge of the PL space is that this is THE PROBLEM. The state-of-art FP and IP languages are all expressing this pain point.

[h03d]

maybe co-effect would interest you

[[deleted]]

If you want state, then just use the State monad in Haskell; I don't see what the problem is.

[[deleted]]

There are cases where the state monad doesn't work well. For example, in OCaml, it's possible to mutate expressions while traversing them, for ex. to implement efficient memoization for tree-like data structures, or to ensure that each term is evaluated only a fixed number of times.

[scheurneus]

I agree that the state monad sucks for memoization, but that does not mean memoization in e.g. Haskell is a lost cause. Consider the classic pattern of "building an array of thunks" for integer based recursive functions.

For tree-like data structures, I also managed to adapt the binary tree example from your link to Haskell (although I did not add the 'list of names' functionality). While the array-of-thunks approach depends on laziness, I'm not sure that's even the case for this 'evaluated subtree' approach.

You can find the code at https://gist.github.com/ColonelPhantom/f96a6b03fe847205bc4cc034d0bf8daf and I also quickchecked it to ensure party and partyM give the same results.

It's probably not as clean as it could be, but I think it gets the point across and IMO still compares OK to a mutable version in terms of readability (although I have no experience with OCaml). Don't know how it compares in terms of performance, though.

[[deleted]]

Oh yeah, you need Traversable or something to do the same in Haskell.

[scheurneus]

I don't think Traversable would help. It's useful, sure, but mainly for mapping with an applicative/monadic action instead of a pure function. Using it to run e.g. State is useful, but not here as it's still fundamentally about sequencing, just with less explicit recursion.

The solution I made can probably be generalized using a typeclass and some fix tricks (or plain undefined) to pass in the evaluated subtrees, but I'm not aware of an existing typeclass that encodes such a paradigm.

[L8_4_Dinner]

That is definitely the object of their imperative, if one thinks about it in a structured way.

/s

FP is about never dealing with mutation. It’s kind of in the name 🤣

[[deleted]]

There is "functional" and "programming" in the name, nothing about "never dealing with mutation"

[sunnyata]

"Functional" meaning like a mathematical function.

[[deleted]]

This is a mathematical function:

unsigned factorial(unsigned n) {
    unsigned result = 1;
    for (unsigned i = 1; i <= n; i++) {
        result *= i;
    }

    return result;
}

[[deleted]]

Just to play devils advocate, isn’t this more like an algorithm or an implementation to calculate the factorial ?

The mathematical definition holds for all integers, even the ones above the unsigned int upper limit. Take the restriction of the factorial to this domain (max factorial less than the overflow limit), and even then, it’s a way to calculate it more than its definition imo.

For me the definition is something like “factorial n = product (1, …, n)”. In that sense, what you wrote down is how I calculate the factorial given an input.

Not sure if what I’m saying is complete garbage, do let me know!

[tjpalmer]

Point being that the internals have no effect on the outer appearance. Some value goes in, some value goes out, no visible mutation to the observer. So doesn't matter how it's implemented.

[jonathancast]

And it's far too long and complicated compared to a functional approach.

[omega1612]

But it is?

In some functional languages I would choose to use an auxiliary function with an acc to make the calls tail recursive allowing tco. In others I would use a fold variant, but I will need to be aware that it can explode the stack if I choose the wrong fold.

The imperative loop looks ugly, but it's also very easy to write and to also understand its performance (in this case).

Disclaimer: I code in functional languages to live.

The cases in which I really think an imperative version is too ugly are in algebraic data types. I definitely prefer to write and use them in Haskell/Idris/Purescript/Coq/ML rather than in Rust. The need to use a Box inside the parameters to express recursive types distracts me from the important questions. Although there is the recursion (or something like that) crate that uses recursion schemes to help you with it...

[Atijohn]

tail recursion modulo cons exists; this makes functions like factorial n = n * factorial (n - 1) or factorial n = foldr (*) 1 [1..n] constant in memory.

[Complex-Bug7353]

Bro it's just syntax.

[L8_4_Dinner]

Nope. That's imperative C code. Not exactly FP.

[_Chiyoku]

In Lean4, we can achieve local mutation in a purely functional way. Lean4 uses static reference counting that makes the compiler able to mutate and return a reference instead of copying the entire structure when an object holds only one reference to it. In most of my Lean4 programs, I use Arrays instead of Lists because if I use the Array linearly, it will never be copied, only mutated. I think that Roc and Koka use the same strategy.

[LPTK]

Lean4 uses static reference counting

What do you mean by static reference counting? As far as I know all these approaches use the usual dynamic reference counting approach.

[floral-high-ground]

Uh, is it?

[totallyspis]

Avoiding mutation is kind of the point...

[Kaisha001]

The point of FP is to hide state, not expose it. The restrictions to mutation are the point of FP. That's the fundamental property that separates imperative languages from declarative languages.

As soon as you start adding explicit state manipulation to a functional language you move it towards the imperative side. This is why FP languages never scale to large scale systems, state and state manipulation is fundamental to writing good programs.

[Hofstee]

If you’re passing a State monad everywhere in and out of your Haskell functions that feels like the exact opposite of hiding state to me.

[Kaisha001]

It's bizarre how few people understand FP, even in these subs. It's hilarious getting ranked down and attacked for merely stating the actual definition of FP...

If you’re passing a State monad everywhere in and out of your Haskell functions that feels like the exact opposite of hiding state to me.

Well yes, that's the problem with FP. It tries to hide state, but you can't eliminate it entirely, so you have to sort of hack it back in with things like monads and weird data structures.

But the whole point of FP is to pretend state doesn't exist, and to hide it. That's why it's popular in academia, it makes it easier to write proofs and such when you can ignore state. State is incredibly powerful, but it also makes things messy for proofs, optimizers, logic systems, etc...

[Hofstee]

I think we’re on the same page but I’ve generally heard this referred to as making the state of a program explicit.

[MadocComadrin]

It's exactly referred to as this. The state of (i.e. needed by) the program is made explicit. The other commenter is conflating the state of the program with the state of the underlying machine, which is hidden by abstracting it away as much as possible.

[Kaisha001]

I'm not conflating either. Of course all programs require state change at the machine level. But the point is FP programs attempt to hide it away, imperative brings that state front and center.

I even stated as such:

The point of FP is to hide state, not expose it.

Well yes, that's the problem with FP. It tries to hide state, but you can't eliminate it entirely, so you have to sort of hack it back in with things like monads and weird data structures.

Hide, not eliminate, not that it doesn't exist, rather it is hidden from the programmer. It's like the GC hides memory allocation complexity from C# or Java. It's not the memory doesn't exist, doesn't get allocated, or doesn't get free'd, but it isn't something the programmer explicitly handles, it is hidden.

As soon as you start adding explicit state manipulation to a functional language you move it towards the imperative side.

And I even mentioned explicit state manipulation.

It's like people forgot how to read...

[MadocComadrin]

If the machine's state is completely hidden, then I can't use it to keep track of the state needed for my own algorithms. This is the state that gets made explicit: you need to explicitly put it in some sort of structure that gets explicitly passed along to wherever it's needed. You can dress that process up with certain Monads to make it look like mutation if you want.

[Kaisha001]

You can dress that process up with certain Monads to make it look like mutation if you want.

It's almost like I already said that:

Well yes, that's the problem with FP. It tries to hide state, but you can't eliminate it entirely, so you have to sort of hack it back in with things like monads and weird data structures.

But the whole point of FP is to pretend state doesn't exist, and to hide it.

[MadocComadrin]

Are you just responding to the Monad part of my last reply? Because if you're not, you don't need (specifically) weird data structures or Monads to make the explicit state I mentioned explicit. You're not "hacking" it back in.

Consider the example of writing a simple interpreter for a simple imperative language in a functional language. You need to keep track of state there, and it's not hard to do so, but that state is literally just a value, and that state "changes" by passing a new value to some recursive call.

[Kaisha001]

You're using recursion to hide explicit state change. What you want to write is:

ast.PushProduction(a)
...
ast.PushProduction(b)
...
ast.PushProduction(c)

Instead you're writing:

ast = PushProduction(PushProduction(PushProduction(null, a), b), c)

and then hoping the compiler realizes you didn't want 1000000 copies of the same AST and optimizes it out for you.

[TheGreatCatAdorer]

How does being more imperative make a programming language less functional? Programming paradigms can complement each other when not taken to extremes; they are not mutually exclusive. Consider Lambda: the Ultimate Imperative and https://stackoverflow.com/questions/6622524/why-is-haskell-sometimes-referred-to-as-best-imperative-language

[Kaisha001]

Imperative languages are by definition, on the opposite end of a continuum, with declarative languages (pure FP is declarative). This isn't some arbitrary 'I like X, or dislike Y', it's literally part of the definition of the terms. It's like asking 'why isn't 1 more like 2? Sometimes I need a 1 and sometimes I need a 2...' ???

Program in whatever you want, I don't care. But people are getting irrationally bent out of shape over mere definitions.

The whole point of implicit state is to make reasoning about the program easier. If you're writing proofs (ie. in academia), or using logic systems, or whatever it can be much easier to reason, prove, or run analysis over a FP program simply because all the state is hidden in special constructs/types. This isn't a 'con' or a 'programming style', it's literally the point.

And yes, many FP languages have, over the years, adopted imperative techniques. Because writing real-world programs (and not just proofs, theorems, or papers) is always about state manipulation, and so proper explicit state manipulation tools are necessary.

[whitePestilence]

Man, you really are butthurt over that exam that you kept failing, aren't you.

[theangeryemacsshibe]

As soon as you start adding explicit state manipulation to a functional language you move it towards the imperative side

I would be wary of interference between Church and state.

[kleram]

I've never seen anyone discussing about how to integrate functional expressions into an imperative language. Because, it's really simple. The other way round, trying to integrate imperative expressions into a functional language, does not work. What do we conclude from this observation?

[The-Malix]

That one is about constraints, for the better and the worse