In my experience, forcing a grammar representation to not be left-recursive tends to be unintuitive or cumbersome in many cases.
I am surveying various parser generator frameworks and I am currently reading about Antlr and Boost.Spirit.
Do either of them support left-recursive grammars? In general, which one supports more powerful grammars?
Thanks!
I'll google that for you. Yep, ANTLR 4 supports directly left recursive rules. https://theantlrguy.atlassian.net/wiki/display/ANTLR4/Left-recursive+rules
If a person learns data-structure and algorithm in one programming language does it needs to learn other language's data-structure and algorithm ?
As i am about to start a book Data-structure and algorithm in JavaScript as i also want to learn Web
will it help me for other languages too?
Data structures and algorithms are concepts that are independent of language. Therefore once you master them in you favorite language it's relatively easy to switch to another one.
Now if you're asking about built-in methods and apis that different languages have, they do differ, but you shouldn't learn specific APIs in your data-structure and algorithms book anyways.
Yes... and no.
While the concepts behind algorithms and data structures, like space and time complexity or mutability, are language agnostic, some languages might not let you implement some of those patterns at all.
A good example would be a recursive algorithm. In some languages like haskell, recursivity is the best way to iterate over a collection of element. In other languages like C, you should avoid using recursive algorithm on unbound collections as you can easily hit the dept limit of the stack. You could also easily imagine a language that is not even stack based and in which a recursive algorithm would be completely impossible to implement. You could implement a stack on top of such a language but it would most definitely be slower than implementing the algorithm in a different fashion.
An other example would be object oriented data structures. Some languages like haskell do not let you change values. All elements in such language are immutable and must be copied to be changed. This is analog to how numbers are handled in javascript where you cannot change the value 2, but you can take the value 2, add 1 to it and then store it to a new location. Other languages like C do not have (or very poorly handle) object oriented programming. This will break down most data structure pattern you will learn about in a javascript oriented book.
In the end, it all boils down to performance. You don't write C code like you write JavaScript or F# code. They all have their quirks and thus need different implementations even though the idea behind those algorithms and structures will stay the same. You can always emulate a pattern on a language that does not supports it, like OOP in C, but it will always feel more natural to solve the problem in a different way.
That being said, as long as you stay within the same kind of language, you can probably reuse 80%+ of that book. There are many OOP languages out there. Javascript is probably the most exotic of them all with its ability to treat all objects like dictionaries and its weird concept of "this" so a lot of patterns in there will not apply in those other languages.
You need not learn data structure and algorithm when you use another language.The reason is evident, all of data structures and algorithm is a realization of some kinds of "mathmatical or logical thought".
for example,if you learn the sort algorithm, you must hear about the quick sort and merge sort and any others, the realization of different sort algotithm is based on fundamental element that almost every language has,such as varible,arrays,loop and so on. i mean you can realize it without using the language(such as JavaScript) characteristics.
although it is nothing relevant to language,i still suggest you stduy it with C.The reason is that C is a lower high-level language which means it is near the operating system.And the algorithm you write with C is faster than Java or Python.(Most cases).And C don't have so many characteristic like c++ stl or java collection. In C++ or Java, it realize hashmap itself.If you are a green hand to data structure, you'd better realize it from 0 to 1 yourself rather directly use other "tools" to lazy.
The data structure and algorithm as concepts are the same across languages, the implementation however varies greatly.
Just look at the implementation of quicksort in an imperative language like C and in a functional language like Haskell. This particular algorithm is a poster boy for functional languages as it can be implemented in just about two lines (and people are particularly fond of stressing that's it).
There is a finer point. Depending on the language, many data structures and algorithms needn't be implemented explicitly at all, other than as an academic exercise to learn about them. For example, in Python you don't really need to implement an associative container whereas in C++ you need to.
If it helps, think of using DS and algo in different programming languages as narrating a story in multiple human languages. The plot elements remain the same but the ease of expression, or the lack thereof, varies greatly depending on the language used to narrate it.
(DSA) Data structures and algorithms are like emotions in humans (in all humans emotions are same like happy, sad etc)
and, programming languages are like different languages that humans speak (like spanish, english, german, arabic etc)
all humans have same emotions (DSA) but when they express them in different languages (programming languages) , the way of expressing (implementation) of these emotions (DSA) are different.
so when you switch to using different or new language, just have a look at how those DSA are implemented in that languages.
There's a company that have/are developing a very parallel computer called Parallella. It looks like it has lots of potential, but it runs some C style language.
Q. Has anyone written a language specifically to take advantage of massively parallel computers like this?
Clause 1. It has to be a managed garbage collected language.
Clause 2. It has to make it very easy to write parallel code without requiring the developer to look after low-level locking.
Clause 3. Bonus points for functional languages.
Clause 4. Super bonus points for languages with lambdas.
There are a definitely languages that have been designed to deal with the rising popularity of parallel computing. Parallel processors have sky rocketed in popularity since the death of Moore's Law. Support for better parallel computing in programming languages has followed quickly in its path.
My personal recommendation would be either Haskell or Clojure. Both are functional languages which have made great strides in parallel and concurrent computing leveraging their functional nature to gain advantages. Haskell has a really nice book called Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell by Simon Marlow. I've read it and it's excellent. Clojure has also been built from the ground up with concurrency in mind. An interesting new player in this space is Julia, but I can't say I know much about it at all.
As for clause 1, I don't know what a managed language means. EDIT: What you're calling a managed language is more commonly called garbage collected language. You might want to use that term to help get more effective answers. Also all the languages I recommended have garbage collection.
As for clause 2, Haskell definitely makes parallel computing fairly automatic without any worrying about low level concepts or locking. There is a simple function called 'par' which allows the programmer to annotate two computations to be executed in parallel. The semantics guarantee that the expressions be evaluated when they're necessary and since the computations are functional they are guaranteed not to interact in non-thread-safe ways.
As for clause 3, you're on the right track to be looking for a functional language. Functional subcomputations have automatic thread safety which pays big dividends when it comes to ensuring parallel execution doesn't cause problems. It can't cause any if the computations are functional.
As for clause 4, good luck finding a functional language that doesn't have lambda ;) EDIT: It's not, strictly speaking, part of the definition of a functional language because there is no formal definition for what a functional programing language is. Informally I think a lot of people would mention it as one of the most important features. Concatenative languages or languages that are based on tacit programming (aka point-free style) can be functional and get away with not having lambda. I wouldn't be surprised if the K language didn't have lambda despite being functional. Also, I know for sure combinatory logic (which is the basis for K) does not have lambda. Though combinatory logic is just a theoretical basis and not a practical programming language.
I'm a C# developer and I don't have enough information about functional languages,
My question that is there any algorithm needs functional language exclusively to be implemented?
Regards.
As long as a language is Turing complete, any algorithm can be implemented in it (by definition of "algorithm"). But as others have said, functional languages can do certain things more elegantly. (Just take a look at Haskell. What a lovely language.) I'd also argue that there is a class of problems that OOP languages do better. (In my opinion, GUIs, although some may disagree.)
No, however a functional language may lead to a more elegant implementation for an algorithm that can exploit the features of such a language. For example, one that requires large recursive depth.
As I understand it, such algorithm would have to be translated into a set of machine commands executed on some micro-processor (whether you use compiled or interpreted language). And none of the current processors are 'functional'.
In fact, this leads to even broader assertion: any 'functional algorithm' can be implemented in C or assembler :)
Wikipedia says Ruby is a functional language, but I'm not convinced. Why or why not?
Whether a language is or is not a functional language is unimportant. Functional Programming is a thesis, best explained by Philip Wadler (The Essence of Functional Programming) and John Hughes (Why Functional Programming Matters).
A meaningful question is, 'How amenable is Ruby to achieving the thesis of functional programming?' The answer is 'very poorly'.
I gave a talk on this just recently. Here are the slides.
Ruby does support higher-level functions (see Array#map, inject, & select), but it is still an imperative, Object-Oriented language.
One of the key characteristics of a functional language it that it avoids mutable state. Functional languages do not have the concept of a variable as you would have in Ruby, C, Java, or any other imperative language.
Another key characteristic of a functional language is that it focuses on defining a program in terms of "what", rather than "how". When programming in an OO language, we write classes & methods to hide the implementation (the "how") from the "what" (the class/method name), but in the end these methods are still written using a sequence of statements. In a functional language, you do not specify a sequence of execution, even at the lowest level.
I most definitely think you can use functional style in Ruby.
One of the most critical aspects to be able to program in a functional style is if the language supports higher order functions... which Ruby does.
That said, it's easy to program in Ruby in a non-functional style as well. Another key aspect of functional style is to not have state, and have real mathematical functions that always return the same value for a given set of inputs. This can be done in Ruby, but it is not enforced in the language like something more strictly functional like Haskell.
So, yeah, it supports functional style, but it also will let you program in a non-functional style as well.
I submit that supporting, or having the ability to program in a language in a functional style does not a functional language make.
I can even write Java code in a functional style if I want to hurt my collegues, and myself a few months weeks on.
Having a functional language is not only about what you can do, such as higher-order functions, first-class functions and currying. It is also about what you cannot do, like side-effects in pure functions.
This is important because it is a big part of the reason why functional programs are, or functional code in generel is, easier to reason about. And when code is easier to reason about, bugs become shallower and float to the conceptual surface where they can be fixed, which in turn gives less buggy code.
Ruby is object-oriented at its core, so even though it has reasonably good support for a functional style, it is not itself a functional language.
That's my non-scientific opinion anyway.
Edit:
In retrospect and with consideration for the fine comments I have recieved to this answer thus far, I think the object-oriented versus functional comparison is one of apples and oranges.
The real differentiator is that of being imparative in execution, or not. Functional languages have the expression as their primary linguistic construct and the order of execution is often undefined or defined as being lazy. Strict execution is possible but only used when needed. In an imparative language, strict execution is the default and while lazy execution is possible, it is often kludgy to do and can have unpredictable results in many edge cases.
Now, that's my non-scientific opinion.
Ruby will have to meet the following requirements in order to be "TRUELY" functional.
Immutable values: once a “variable” is set, it cannot be changed. In Ruby, this means you effectively have to treat variables like constants. The is not fully supported in the language, you will have to freeze each variable manually.
No side-effects: when passed a given value, a function must always return the same result. This goes hand in hand with having immutable values; a function can never take a value and change it, as this would be causing a side-effect that is tangential to returning a result.
Higher-order functions: these are functions that allow functions as arguments, or use functions as the return value. This is, arguably, one of the most critical features of any functional language.
Currying: enabled by higher-order functions, currying is transforming a function that takes multiple arguments into a function that takes one argument. This goes hand in hand with partial function application, which is transforming a multi-argument function into a function that takes less arguments then it did originally.
Recursion: looping by calling a function from within itself. When you don’t have access to mutable data, recursion is used to build up and chain data construction. This is because looping is not a functional concept, as it requires variables to be passed around to store the state of the loop at a given time.
Lazy-evaluation, or delayed-evaluation: delaying processing of values until the moment when it is actually needed. If, as an example, you have some code that generated list of Fibonacci numbers with lazy-evaluation enabled, this would not actually be processed and calculated until one of the values in the result was required by another function, such as puts.
Proposal (Just a thought)
I would be of great to have some kind of definition to have a mode directive to declare files with functional paradigm, example
mode 'functional'
Ruby is a multi-paradigm language that supports a functional style of programming.
Ruby is an object-oriented language, that can support other paradigms (functional, imperative, etc). However, since everything in Ruby is an object, it's primarily an OO language.
example:
"hello".reverse() = "olleh", every string is a string object instance and so on and so forth.
Read up here or here
It depends on your definition of a “functional language”. Personally, I think the term is itself quite problematic when used as an absolute. The are more aspects to being a “functional language” than mere language features and most depend on where you're looking from. For instance, the culture surrounding the language is quite important in this regard. Does it encourage a functional style? What about the available libraries? Do they encourage you to use them in a functional way?
Most people would call Scheme a functional language, for example. But what about Common Lisp? Apart from the multiple-/single-namespace issue and guaranteed tail-call elimination (which some CL implementations support as well, depending on the compiler settings), there isn't much that makes Scheme as a language more suited to functional programming than Common Lisp, and still, most Lispers wouldn't call CL a functional language. Why? Because the culture surrounding it heavily depends on CL's imperative features (like the LOOP macro, for example, which most Schemers would probably frown upon).
On the other hand, a C programmer may well consider CL a functional language. Most code written in any Lisp dialect is certainly much more functional in style than your usual block of C code, after all. Likewise, Scheme is very much an imperative language as compared to Haskell. Therefore, I don't think there can ever be a definite yes/no answer. Whether to call a language functional or not heavily depends on your viewpoint.
Ruby isn't really much of a multi-paradigm language either, I think. Multi-paradigm tends to be used by people wanting to label their favorite language as something which is useful in many different areas.
I'd describe Ruby is an object-oriented scripting language. Yes, functions are first-class objects (sort of), but that doesn't really make it a functional language. IMO, I might add.
Recursion is common in functional programming. Almost any language does support recursion, but recursive algorithms are often ineffective if there is no tail call optimization (TCO).
Functional programming languages are capable of optimizing tail recursion and can execute such code in constant space. Some Ruby implementations do optimize tail recursion, the other don't, but in general Ruby implementations are not required to do TCO. See Does Ruby perform Tail Call Optimization?
So, if you write some Ruby functional style and rely on TCO of some particular implementation, your code may be very ineffective in another Ruby interpreter. I think this is why Ruby is not a functional language (neither is Python).
Strictly speaking, it doesn't make sense to describe a language as "functional"; most languages are capable of functional programming. Even C++ is.
Functional style is more or less a subset of imperative language features, supported with syntactic sugar and some compiler optimizations like immutability and tail-recursion flattening,
The latter arguably is a minor implementation-specific technicality and has nothing to do with the actual language. The x64 C# 4.0 compiler does tail-recursion optimization, whereas the x86 one doesn't for whatever stupid reason.
Syntactic sugar can usually be worked around to some extent or another, especially if the language has a programmable precompiler (i.e. C's #define).
It might be slightly more meaningful to ask, "does language __ support imperative programming?", and the answer, for instance with Lisp, is "no".
Please, have a look at the beginning of the book: "A-Great-Ruby-eBook". It discusses the very specific topic you are asking. You can do different types of programming in Ruby. If you want to program like functionally, you can do it. If you want to program like imperatively, you can do it. It is a definition question how functional Ruby in the end is. Please, see the reply by the user camflan.