Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 4 years ago.
Improve this question
So sometimes I need to write a data structure I can't find on Hackage, or what I find isn't tested or quality enough for me to trust, or it's just something I don't want to be a dependency. I am reading Okasaki's book right now, and it's quite good at explaining how to design asymptotically fast data structures.
However, I am working specifically with GHC. Constant factors are a big deal for my applications. Memory usage is also a big deal for me. So I have questions specifically about GHC.
In particular
How to maximize sharing of nodes
How to reduce memory footprint
How to avoid space leaks due to improper strictness/laziness
How to get GHC to produce tight inner loops for important sections of code
I've looked around various places on the web, and I have a vague idea of how to work with GHC, for example, looking at core output, using UNPACK pragmas, and the like. But I'm not sure I get it.
So I popped open my favorite data structures library, containers, and looked at the Data.Sequence module. I can't say I understand a lot of what they're doing to make Seq fast.
The first thing that catches my eye is the definition of FingerTree a. I assume that's just me being unfamiliar with finger trees though. The second thing that catches my eye is all the SPECIALIZE pragmas. I have no idea what's going on here, and I'm very curious, as these are littered all over the code.
Many functions also have an INLINE pragma associated with them. I can guess what that means, but how do I make a judgement call on when to INLINE functions?
Things get really interesting around line ~475, a section headered as 'Applicative Construction'. They define a newtype wrapper to represent the Identity monad, they write their own copy of the strict state monad, and they have a function defined called applicativeTree which, apparently is specialized to the Identity monad and this increases sharing of the output of the function. I have no idea what's going on here. What sorcery is being used to increase sharing?
Anyway, I'm not sure there's much to learn from Data.Sequence. Are there other 'model programs' I can read to gain wisdom? I'd really like to know how to soup up my data structures when I really need them to go faster. One thing in particular is writing data structures that make fusion easy, and how to go about writing good fusion rules.
That's a big topic! Most has been explained elsewhere, so I won't try to write a book chapter right here. Instead:
Real World Haskell, ch 25, "Performance" - discusses profiling, simple specialization and unpacking, reading Core, and some optimizations.
Johan Tibell is writing a lot on this topic:
Computing the size of a data structure
Memory footprints of common data types
Faster persistent structures through hashing
Reasoning about laziness
And some things from here:
Reading GHC Core
How GHC does optimization
Profiling for performance
Tweaking GC settings
General improvements
More on unpacking
Unboxing and strictness
And some other things:
Intro to specialization of code and data
Code improvement flags
applicativeTree is quite fancy, but mainly in a way which has to do with FingerTrees in particular, which are quite a fancy data structure themselves. We had some discussion of the intricacies over at cstheory. Note that applicativeTree is written to work over any Applicative. It just so happens that when it is specialized to Id then it can share nodes in a manner that it otherwise couldn't. You can work through the specialization yourself by inlining the Id methods and seeing what happens. Note that this specialization is used in only one place -- the O(log n) replicate function. The fact that the more general function specializes neatly to the constant case is a very clever bit of code reuse, but that's really all.
In general, Sequence teaches more about designing persistent data structures than about all the tricks for eeking out performance, I think. Dons' suggestions are of course excellent. I'd also just browse through the source of the really canonical and tuned libs -- Map, IntMap, Set, and IntSet in particular. Along with those, its worth taking a look at Milan's paper on his improvements to containers.
Related
This question already has answers here:
When is a function too long? [closed]
(24 answers)
Closed 5 years ago.
How small should I be making functions? For example, if I have a cake baking program.
bakeCake(){
if(cakeType == "chocolate")
fetchIngredients("chocolate")
else
if(cakeType == "plain")
fetchIngredients("plain")
else
if(cakeType == "Red velvet")
fetchIngredients("Red Velvet")
//Rest of program
My question is, while this stuff is simple enough on its own, when I add much more stuff to the bakeCake function it becomes cluttered. But lets say that this program has to bake thousands of cakes per second. From what I've heard, it takes significantly longer (relative to computer time) to use another function compared to just doing the statements in the current function. So something that's similar like this should be very easy to read, and if efficiency is important wouldn't I want to keep it in there?
Basically, at what point do I sacrifice readability for efficiency. And a quick bonus question, at what point does having too many functions decrease readability? Here's an example of Apple's swift tutorial.
func isCandyAmountAcceptable(bandMemberCount: Int, candyCount: Int) -> Bool {
return candyCount % bandMemberCount == 0
They said that because the function name isCandyAmountAcceptable was easier to read than candyCount % bandMemberCount == 0 that it'd be good to make a function for that. But from my perspective it may take a few seconds to figure out what the second option is saying, but it's also more readable when ti comes to knowing how it works.
Sorry about being all over the place and kinda asking 2 questions in one. Just to summarize my questions:
Does using functions extraneously make efficiency (speed) suffer? If it does how can I figure out what the cutoff between readability and efficiency is?
How small and simple should I make functions for? Obviously I'd make them if I ever have to repeat the function, but what about one time use functions?
Thanks guys, sorry if these questions are ignorant or anything but I'd really appreciate an answer.
Does using functions extraneously make efficiency (speed) suffer? If
it does how can I figure out what the cutoff between readability and
efficiency is?
For performance I would generally not factor in any overhead of direct function calls against any decent optimizer, since it can even make those come free of charge. When it doesn't, it's still a negligible overhead in, say, 99.9% of scenarios. That applies even for performance-critical fields. I work in areas like raytracing, mesh processing, and image processing and still the cost of a function call is typically on the bottom of the priority list as opposed to, say, locality of reference, efficient data structures, parallelization, and vectorization. Even when you're micro-optimizing, there are much bigger priorities than the cost of a direct function call, and even when you're micro-optimizing, you often want to leave a lot of the optimization for your optimizer to perform instead of trying to fight against it and do it all by hand (unless you're actually writing assembly code).
Of course with some compilers you might deal with ones that never inline function calls and have a bit of an overhead to every function call. But in that case I'd still say it's relatively negligible since you probably shouldn't be worrying about such micro-level optimizations when using those languages and interpreters/compilers. Even then it will probably often be bottom on the priority list, relatively speaking, as opposed to more impactful things like improving locality of reference and thread efficiency.
It's like if you're using a compiler with very simplistic register allocation that has a stack spill for every single variable you use, that doesn't mean you should be trying to use and reuse as few variables as possible to work around its tendencies. It means reach for a new compiler in those cases where that's a non-negligible overhead (ex: write some C code into a dylib and use that for the most performance-critical parts), or focus on higher-level optimizations like making everything run in parallel.
How small and simple should I make functions for? Obviously I'd make
them if I ever have to repeat the function, but what about one time
use functions?
This is where I'm going to go slightly off-kilter and actually suggest you consider avoiding the teeniest of functions for maintainability reasons. This is admittedly a controversial opinion although at least John Carmack seems to somewhat agree (specifically in respect to inlining code and avoiding excess function calls for cases where side effects occur to make the side effects easier to comprehend).
However, if you are going to make a lot of state changes, having them
all happen inline does have advantages; you should be made constantly
aware of the full horror of what you are doing.
The reason I believe it can sometimes be good to err on the side of meatier functions is because there's often more to comprehend than that of a simple function to understand all the information necessary to make a change or fix a problem.
Which is simpler to comprehend, a function whose logic consists of 80 lines of inlined code, or one distributed across a couple dozen functions and possibly ones that lead to disparate places throughout the codebase?
The answer is not so clear cut. Naturally if the teeny functions are used widely, like say sqrt or abs, then the reader can simply skim over the function call, knowing full well what it does like the back of his hand. But if there are a lot of teeny exotic functions that are only used one time, then the ability to comprehend the operation as a whole requires looking them up and understanding what they all individually do before you can get a proper comprehension of what's going on in terms of the big picture.
I actually disagree with that Apple Swift tutorial somewhat with that one-liner function because while it is easier to understand than figuring out what the arithmetic and comparison are supposed to do, in exchange it might require looking it up to see what it does in scenarios where you can't just say, isCandyAmountAcceptable is enough information for me and need to figure out exactly what makes an amount acceptable. Instead I would actually prefer a simple comment:
// Determine if candy amount is acceptable.
if (candyCount % bandMemberCount == 0)
...
... because then you don't have to jump to disparate places in code (the analogy of a book referring its reader to other pages in the book causing the readers to constantly have to flip back and forth between pages) to figure that out. Of course the idea behind this isCandyAmountAcceptable kind of function is that you shouldn't have to be concerned with such details about what makes a candy amount of acceptable, but too often in practice, we do end up having to understand the details more often than we optimally should to debug the code or make changes to it. If the code never needs to be debugged or changed, then it doesn't really matter how it's written. It could even be written in binary code for all we care. But if it's written to be maintained, as in debugged and changed in the future, then sometimes it is helpful to avoid making the readers have to jump through lots of hoops. The details do often matter in those scenarios.
So sometimes it doesn't help to understand the big picture by fragmenting it into the teeniest of puzzle pieces. It's a balancing act, but certain types of developers can err on the side of overly dicing up their systems into the most granular bits and pieces and finding maintenance problems that way. Those types are still often promising engineers -- they just have to find their balance. The other extreme is the one that writes 500-line functions and doesn't even consider refactoring -- those are kinda hopeless. But I think you fit in the former category, and for you, I'd actually suggest erring on the side of meatier functions ever-so-slightly just to keep the puzzle pieces a healthy size (not too small, not too big).
There's even a balancing act I see between code duplication and minimizing dependencies. An image library doesn't necessarily become easier to comprehend by shaving off a few dozen lines of duplicated math code if the exchange is a dependency to a complex math library with 800,000 lines of code and an epic manual on how to use it. In such cases, the image library might very well be easier to comprehend as well as use and deploy in new projects if it chooses instead to duplicate a few math functions here and there to avoid external dependencies, isolating its complexity instead of distributing it elsewhere.
Basically, at what point do I sacrifice readability for efficiency.
As stated above, I don't think readability of the small picture and comprehensibility of the big picture are synonymous. It can be really easy to read a two-line function and know what it does and still be miles away from understanding what you need to understand to make the necessary changes. Having many of those teeny one-shot two-liners can even delay the ability to comprehend the big picture.
But if I use "comprehensibility vs. efficiency" instead, I'd say upfront at the design-level for cases where you anticipate processing huge inputs. As an example, a video processing application with custom filters knows it's going to be looping over millions of pixels many times per frame. That knowledge should be utilized to come up with an efficient design for looping over millions of pixels repeatedly. But that's with respect to design -- towards the central aspects of the system that many other places will depend upon because big central design changes are too costly to apply late in hindsight.
That doesn't mean it has to start applying hard-to-understand SIMD code right off the bat. That's an implementation detail provided the design leaves enough breathing room to explore such an optimization in hindsight. Such a design would imply abstracting at the Image level, at the level of a million+ pixels, not at the level of a single IPixel. That's the worthy thing to take into consideration upfront.
Then later on, you can optimize hotspots and potentially use some difficult-to-understand algorithms and micro-optimizations here and there for those truly critical cases where there's a strong perceived business need for the operation to go faster, and hopefully with good tools (profilers, i.e.) in hand. The user cases guide you about what operations to optimize based on what the users do most often and find a strong desire to spend less time waiting. The profiler guides you about precisely what parts of the code involved in that operation need to be optimized.
Readability, performance and maintainability are three different things. Readability will make your code look simple and understandable, not necessarily best way to go. Performance is always going to be important, unless you are running this code in non-production environment where end result is more important than how it was achieved. Enter the world of enterprise applications, maintainability suddenly gains lot more importance. What you work on today will be handed over to somebody else after 6 months and they will be fixing/changing your code. This is why suddenly standard design patterns become so important. In a way, the readability is part of maintainability on larger scale. If the cake baking program above is something more complex than what its looking like, first thing stands out as a code smell is existence if if-else. Its gotta get replaced with polymorphism. Same goes with switch case kind of construct.
At what point do you decide to sacrifice one for other? That purely depends upon what business your code is achieving. Is it academic? Its got to be the perfect solution even if it means 90% devs struggle to figure out at first glance what the hell is happening. Is it a website belonging to retail store being maintained by distributed team of 50 devs working from 2 or more different geographic locations? Follow the conventional design patterns.
A rule of thumb I have always seen being followed in almost all situations is that if a function is growing beyond half the screen, its a candidate for refactoring. Do you have functions that end up you having your editor long length scroll bars? Refactor!!!
Closed. This question is opinion-based. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it can be answered with facts and citations by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Considering the fact that currently many libraries already have optimized sort engines, then why still many companies ask about Big O and some sorting algorithms, when in reality in our every day in computing, this type of implementation is not any longer really needed?
For example, self balancing binary tree, is a kind of problem that some big companies from the embedded industry still ask programmers to code as part of their testing and candidate selection process.
Even for embedded coding, there are any circumstances when such kind of implementation is going to take place, given fact that boost, SQLite and other libraries are available for use? In other words, is it worth still to think on ways to optimize such algorithms?
As an embedded programmer, I would say it all comes down to the problem and system constraints. Especially on a microprocessor, you may not want/need to pull in Boost and SQLite may still be too heavy for a given problem. How you chop up problems looks different if you have say, 2K of RAM - but this is definitely the extreme.
So for example, you probably don't want to rewrite code for a red-black tree yourself because as you pointed out, you will likely end up with highly non-optimized code. But in the pursuit of reusability, abstraction often adds layers of indirection to the code. So you may end up reimplementing at least simpler "solved" problems where you can do better than the built-in library for certain niche cases. Recently I wrote a specialized version of linked lists using shared memory pools for allocation across lists, for example. I had benchmarked against STL's list and it just wasn't cutting it because of the added layers of abstraction. Is my code as good? No, probably not. But I was more easily able to specialize the specific uses cases, so it came out better.
So I guess I'd like to address a few things from your post:
-Why do companies still ask about big-O runtime? I have seen even pretty good engineers make bad choices with regards to data structures because they didn't reason carefully about the O() runtime. Quadratic versus linear or linear versus constant time operation is a painful lesson when you get the assumption wrong. (ah, the voice of experience)
-Why do companies still ask about implementing classic structures/algorithms? Arguably you won't reimplement quick sort, but as stated, you may very well end up implementing slightly less complicated structures on a more regular basis. Truthfully, if I'm looking to hire you, I'm going to want to make sure that you understand the theory inside and out for existing solutions so if I need you to come up with a new solution you can take an educated crack at it. And if the other applicant has that and you don't, I'd probably say they have an advantage.
Also, here's another way to think about it. In software development, often the platform is quite powerful and the consumer already owns the hardware platform. In embedded software development, the consumer is probably purchasing the hardware platform - hopefully from your company. This means that the software is often selling the hardware. So often it makes more cents to use less powerful, cheaper hardware to solve a problem and take a bit more time to develop the firmware. The firmware is a one-time cost upfront, whereas hardware is per-unit. So even from the business side there are pressures for constrained hardware which in turn leads to specialized structure implementation on the software side.
If you suggest using SQLite on a 2 kB Arduino, you might hear a lot of laughter.
Embedded systems are bit special. They often have extraordinarily tight memory requirements, so space complexity might be far more important than time complexity. I've rarely worked in that area myself, so I don't know what embedded systems companies are interested in, but if they're asking such questions, then it's probably because you'll need to be more acquainted with such issues than in other areas of I.T.
Nothing is optimized enough.
Besides, the questions are meant to test your understanding of the solution (and each part of the solution) and not how great you are at memorizing stuff. Hence it makes perfect sense to ask such questions.
One of the promises of side-effect free, referentially transparent functional programming is that such code can be extensively optimized.
To quote Wikipedia:
Immutability of data can, in many cases, lead to execution efficiency, by allowing the compiler to make assumptions that are unsafe in an imperative language, thus increasing opportunities for inline expansion.
I'd like to see examples where a functional language compiler outperforms an imperative one by producing a better optimized code.
Edit: I tried to give a specific scenario, but apparently it wasn't a good idea. So I'll try to explain it in a different way.
Programmers translate ideas (algorithms) into languages that machines can understand. At the same time, one of the most important aspects of the translation is that also humans can understand the resulting code. Unfortunately, in many cases there is a trade-off: A concise, readable code suffers from slow performance and needs to be manually optimized. This is error-prone, time consuming, and it makes the code less readable (up to totally unreadable).
The foundations of functional languages, such as immutability and referential transparency, allow compilers to perform extensive optimizations, which could replace manual optimization of code and free programmers from this trade-off. I'm looking for examples of ideas (algorithms) and their implementations, such that:
the (functional) implementation is close to the original idea and is easy to understand,
it is extensively optimized by the compiler of the language, and
it is hard (or impossible) to write similarly efficient code in an imperative language without manual optimizations that reduce its conciseness and readability.
I apologize if it is a bit vague, but I hope the idea is clear. I don't want to give unnecessary restrictions on the answers. I'm open to suggestions if someone knows how to express it better.
My interest isn't just theoretical. I'd like to use such examples (among other things) to motivate students to get interested in functional programming.
At first, I wasn't satisfied by a few examples suggested in the comments. On second thoughts I take my objections back, those are good examples. Please feel free to expand them to full answers so that people can comment and vote for them.
(One class of such examples will be most likely parallelized code, which can take advantage of multiple CPU cores. Often in functional languages this can be done easily without sacrificing code simplicity (like in Haskell by adding par or pseq in appropriate places). I' be interested in such examples too, but also in other, non-parallel ones.)
There are cases where the same algorithm will optimize better in a pure context. Specifically, stream fusion allows an algorithm that consists of a sequence of loops that may be of widely varying form: maps, filters, folds, unfolds, to be composed into a single loop.
The equivalent optimization in a conventional imperative setting, with mutable data in loops, would have to achieve a full effect analysis, which no one does.
So at least for the class of algorithms that are implemented as pipelines of ana- and catamorphisms on sequences, you can guarantee optimization results that are not possible in an imperative setting.
A very recent paper Haskell beats C using generalised stream fusion by Geoff Mainland, Simon Peyton Jones, Simon Marlow, Roman Leshchinskiy (submitted to ICFP 2013) describes such an example. Abstract (with the interesting part in bold):
Stream fusion [6] is a powerful technique for automatically transforming
high-level sequence-processing functions into efficient implementations.
It has been used to great effect in Haskell libraries
for manipulating byte arrays, Unicode text, and unboxed vectors.
However, some operations, like vector append, still do not perform
well within the standard stream fusion framework. Others,
like SIMD computation using the SSE and AVX instructions available
on modern x86 chips, do not seem to fit in the framework at
all.
In this paper we introduce generalized stream fusion, which
solves these issues. The key insight is to bundle together multiple
stream representations, each tuned for a particular class of stream
consumer. We also describe a stream representation suited for efficient
computation with SSE instructions. Our ideas are implemented
in modified versions of the GHC compiler and vector library.
Benchmarks show that high-level Haskell code written using
our compiler and libraries can produce code that is faster than both
compiler- and hand-vectorized C.
This is just a note, not an answer: the gcc has a pure attribute suggesting it can take account of purity; the obvious reasons are remarked on in the manual here.
I would think that 'static single assignment' imposes a form of purity -- see the links at http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/2860 or the wikipedia article.
make and various build systems perform better for large projects by assuming that various build steps are referentially transparent; as such, they only need to rerun steps that have had their inputs change.
For small to medium sized changes, this can be a lot faster than building from scratch.
Does it makes sense to implement your own version of data structures and algorithms in your language of choice even if they are already supported, knowing that care has been taking into tuning them for best possible performance?
Sometimes - yes. You might need to optimise the data structure for your specific case, or give it some specific extra functionality.
A java example is apache Lucene (A mature, widely used Information Retrieval library). Although the Map<S,T> interface and implementations already exists - for performance issues, its usage is not good enough, since it boxes the int to an Integer, and a more optimized IntToIntMap was developed for this purpose, instead of using a Map<Integer,Integer>.
The question contains a false assumption, that there's such a thing as "best possible performance".
If the already-existing code was tuned for best possible performance with your particular usage patterns, then it would be impossible for you to improve on it in respect of performance, and attempting to do so would be futile.
However, it wasn't tuned for best possible performance with your particular usage. Assuming it was tuned at all, it was designed to have good all-around performance on average, taken across a lot of possible usage patterns, some of which are irrelevant to you.
So, it is possible in principle that by implementing the code yourself, you can apply some tweak that helps you and (if the implementers considered that tweak at all) presumably hinders some other user somewhere else. But that's OK, they don't have to use your code. Maybe you like cuckoo hashing and they like linear probing.
Reasons that the implementers might not have considered the tweak include: they're less smart than you (rare, but it happens); the tweak hadn't been invented when they wrote the code and they aren't following the state of the art for that structure / algorithm; they have better things to do with their time and you don't. In those cases perhaps they'd accept a patch from you once you're finished.
There are also reasons other than performance that you might want a data structure very similar to one that your language supports, but with some particular behavior added or removed. If you can't implement that on top of the existing structure then you might well do it from scratch. Obviously it's a significant cost to do so, up front and in future support, but if it's worth it then you do it.
It may makes sense when you are using a compiled language (like C, Assembly..).
When using an interpreted language you will probably have a performance loss, because the native structure parsers are already compiled, and won't waste time "interpreting" the new structure.
You will probably do it only when the native structure or algorithm lacks something you need.
I currently work with PHP and Ruby on Rails as a web developer. My question is why would I need to know algorithms and data structures? Do I need to learn C, C++ or Java first? What are the practical benefits of knowing algorithms and data structures? What are algorithms and data structures in layman’s terms? (As you can tell unfortunately I have not done a CS course.)
Please provide as much information as possible and thank you in advance ;-)
Data structures are ways of storing stuff, just like you can put stuff in stacks, queues, heaps and buckets - you can do the same thing with data.
Algorithms are recipes or instructions, the quick start manual for your coffee maker is an algorithm to make coffee.
Algorithms are, quite simply, the steps by which you do something. For instance the Coffee Maker Algorithm would run something like
Turn on Coffee Maker
Grind Coffee Beans
Put in filter and place coffee in filter
Add Water
Start brewing process
Drink coffee
A data structure is a means by which we store information in a organized fashion. For further info, check out the Wikipedia Article.
An algorithm is a list of instructions and data structures are ways to represent information. If you're writing computer programs then you're already using algorithms and data structures even if you don't know what the words mean.
I think the biggest advantages in knowing standard algorithms and data structures are:
You can communicate with other programmers using a common language.
Other people will be able to understand your code once you've left.
You will also learn better methods for solving common problems. You could probably solve these problems eventually anyway even without knowing the standard way to do it, but you will spend a lot of time reinventing the wheel and it's unlikely your solutions will be as good as those that thousands of experts have worked on and improved over the years.
An algorithm is a sequence of well defined steps leading to the solution of a type of problem.
A data structure is a way to store and organize data to facilitate access and modifications.
The benefit of knowing standard algorithms and data structures is they are mostly better than you yourself could develop. They are the result of months or even years of work by people who are far more intelligent than the majority of programmers. Knowing a range of data structures and algorithms allows you to fit a problem roughly to a data structure or/and algorithm and tweak as required.
In the classic "cooking/baking equivalent", algorithms are recipes and data structures are your measuring cups, your baking sheets, your cookie cutters, mixing bowls and essentially any other tool you would be using (your cooker is your compiler/interpreter, though).
(source: mit.edu)
This book is the bible on algorithms. In general, data structures relate to how to organize your data to access it in memory, and algorithms are methods / small programs to resolve problems (ex: sorting a list).
The reason you should care is first to understand what can go wrong in your code; poorly implemented algorithms can perform very badly compared to "proven" ones. Knowing classic algorithms and what performance to expect from them helps in knowing how good your code can be, and whether you can/should improve it.
Then there is no need to reinvent the wheel, and rewrite a buggy or sub-optimal implementation of a well-known structure or algorithm.
An algorithm is a representation of the process involved in a computation.
If you wanted to add two numbers then the algorithm might go:
Get first number;
Get second number;
Add first number to second number;
Return result.
At its simplest, an algorithm is just a structured list of things to do - its use in computing is that it allows people to see the intent behind the code and makes logical (as opposed to syntactical) errors easier to spot.
e.g. if step three above said multiply instead of add then someone would be able to point out the error in the logic without having to debug code.
A data structure is a representation of how a system's data should be referenced. It might match a table structure exactly or may be de-normalised to make data access easier. At its simplest it should show how the entities in a system are related.
It is too large a topic to go into in detail but there are plenty of resources on the web.
Data structures are critical the second your software has more than a handful of users. Algorithms is a broad topic, and you'll want to study it if a good knowledge of data structures doesn't fix your performance problems.
You probably don't need a new programming language to benefit from data structures knowledge, though PHP (and other high level languages) will make a lot of it invisible to you, unless you know where to look. Java is my personal favorite learning language for stuff like this, but that's pretty subjective.
My question is why would I need to know algorithms and data structures?
If you are doing any non-trivial programming, it is a good idea to understand the class data structures and algorithms and their uses in order to avoid reinventing the wheel. For example, if you need to put an array of things in order, you need to understand the various ways of sorting, so that you can choose the most appropriate one for the task in hand. If you choose the wrong approach, you can end up with a program that is grossly inefficient in some circumstances.
Do I need to learn C, C++ or Java first?
You need to know how to program in some language in order to understand what the algorithms and data structures do.
What are the practical benefits of knowing algorithms and data structures?
The main practical benefits are:
to avoid having to reinvent the wheel all of the time,
to avoid the problem of square wheels.