In my journey of a thousand lines of Ruby, I'm having a really hard time with the concept of anonymous functions. Wikipedia says something about there being some nameless soul in the code and it submitting to a higher order, but my understanding ends there.
Or in other words, how would I (when I understand it) explain anonymous functions to my mom?
An anonymous function has these characteristics:
It has no name (hence anonymous)
Is defined inline
Used when you don't want the overhead/formality of a normal function
Is not explicitly referenced more than once, unless passed as an argument to another function
Here's one example of an anonymous function in Ruby (called a block in this case):
my_array.each{ |item| puts item }
Where's the anonymous function in the above? Why, it's the one that receives a single parameter, names it 'item', and then prints it. In JavaScript, the above might be written as...
Array.prototype.each = function(anon){
for (var i=0,len=this.length;i<len;++i) anon(this[i]);
};
myArray.each(function(item){ console.log(item); });
...which both makes it a little bit more clear that a function is being passed as an argument, and also helps one appreciate Ruby's syntax. :)
Here's another anonymous function (back in Ruby):
def count_to(n)
puts "I'm going to count to #{n}"
count = lambda do |i|
if (i>0)
count[i-1]
puts i
end
end
count[n]
puts "I'm done counting!"
end
count_to(3)
#=> I'm going to count to 3
#=> 1
#=> 2
#=> 3
#=> I'm done counting!
Although the example is obviously contrived, it shows how you can create a new function (in this case named count) and assign it to a variable, and use that for recursive calls inside a master method. (Some feel that this is better than creating a second method just for the recursion, or re-using the master method for recursion with very different parameters.)
The function doesn't have a name, the variable does. You could assign it to any number of variables, all with different names.
Returning to the first example, there's even a syntax in Ruby for passing a lambda as the single, blessed block:
print_it = lambda{ |item| puts item }
%w[a b c].each(&print_it)
#=> a
#=> b
#=> c
...but you can also pass a lambda as a normal parameter and call it later, as illustrated here:
module Enumerable
def do_both_to_each( f1, f2 )
each do |item|
f1[item]
f2[item]
end
end
end
print_prefix = lambda{ |i| print "#{i}*#{i} -> " }
print_squared = lambda{ |i| puts i*i }
(1..4).do_both_to_each(print_prefix,print_squared)
#=> 1*1 -> 1
#=> 2*2 -> 4
#=> 3*3 -> 9
#=> 4*4 -> 16
In addiction to previous answers, the anonymous functions are very usefull when you working with closures:
def make_adder n
lambda { |x|
x + n
}
end
t = make_adder 100
puts t.call 1
Or (in Ruby 1.9):
def make_adder_1_9 n
->(x) {
x + n
}
end
t_1_9 = make_adder_1_9 100
puts t_1_9.call 1
Just as Wikipedia says: a function with no name.
It means that you cannot invoke the function in the typical way, by using its name and parameters. Rather the function itself is usually a parameter to another function. A function that operates on functions is called a "higher order function".
Consider this JavaScript(I know you tagged this ruby but...):
window.onload=function(){
//some code here
}
The function will execute when the page loads, but you cannot invoke it by name, because it does not have a name.
What is the point of an anonymous method?
Explanation by Analogy:
When I order my favourite burger (a greasy Big Nac), I don't want to spend 5 minutes filling out a formal order application: name, address, phone number etc. I ain't got time for that. I want to use my mouth: "give me a burger", nice and quick and easy.
Anonymous methods are kinda like the same thing, except when coding:
It's kinda like throwaway method allowing you to code faster
It's the same when coding. If you have to define a function, you have to put it somewhere (else), you have to call it something, and that's a pain, especially if you know you'll never, ever need it again. And when you read the code, you might have to use a complicated IDE to find that method again, and a reference to it. What a pain! You need a throwaway method that you can write directly in your code, where you need it, and just get it done, and move one. Anonymous methods solve this particular problem.
Anonymous functions have the following characteristics:
No name
Inline declaration
Executed directly when declared
Related
I'm unclear on why there is a need to pass block arguments when calling a function.
why not just pass in as function arguments and what happens to the block arguments, how are they passed and used?
m.call(somevalue) {|_k, v| v['abc'] = 'xyz'}
module m
def call ( arg1, *arg2, &arg3)
end
end
Ruby, like almost all mainstream programming languages, is a strict language, meaning that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed into the method.
Now, imagine you want to implement (a simplified version of) Integer#times. The implementation would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
3.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
0.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
-1.my_times(puts "Hello")
# Hello
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
As you can see, 3.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of thrice, as it should do. Also, 0.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, instead of not at all, as it should do, despite the fact that it returns in the second line of the method, and thus action_to_be_executed is never even evaluated. Even -1.my_times(puts "Hello") printed Hello exactly once, despite that fact that it raises an ArgumentError exception as the very first thing in the method and thus the entire rest of the method body is never evaluated.
Why is that? Because Ruby is strict! Again, strict means that arguments are fully evaluated before being passed. So, what this means is that before my_times even gets called, the puts "Hello" is evaluated (which prints Hello to the standard output stream), and the result of that evaluation (which is just nil because Kernel#puts always returns nil) is passed into the method.
So, what we need to do, is somehow delay the evaluation of the argument. One way we know how to delay evaluation, is by using a method: methods are only evaluated when they are called.
So, we take a page out of Java's playbook, and define a Single Abstract Method Protocol: the argument that is being passed to my_each must be an object which implements a method with a specific name. Let's call it call, because, well, we are going to call it.
This would look a little bit like this:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call
pred.my_times(action_to_be_executed)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call
puts "Hello"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello
# Hello
# Hello
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Nice! It works! The argument that is passed is of course still strictly evaluated before being passed (we can't change the fundamental nature of Ruby from within Ruby itself), but this evaluation only results in the object that is bound by the local variable hello. The code that we want to run is another layer of indirection away and will only be executed at the point where we actually call it.
It also has another advantage: Integer#times actually makes the index of the current iteration available to the action as an argument. This was impossible to implement with our first solution, but here we can do it, because we are using a method and methods can take arguments:
class Integer
def my_times(action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
action_to_be_executed.call(index)
pred.__my_times_helper(action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
def (hello = Object.new).call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
3.my_times(hello)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times(hello)
-1.my_times(hello)
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
However, this is not actually very readable. If you didn't want to give a name to this action that we are trying to pass but instead simply literally write it down inside the argument list, it would look something like this:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj|
def obj.call(i)
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
or on one line:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap do |obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end end)
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
# or:
3.my_times(Object.new.tap {|obj| def obj.call; puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" end })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
Now, I don't know about you, but I find that pretty ugly.
In Ruby 1.9, Ruby added Proc literals aka stabby lambda literals to the language. Lambda literals are a concise literal syntax for writing objects with a call method, specifically Proc objects with Proc#call.
Using lambda literals, and without any changes to our existing code, it looks something like this:
3.my_times(-> i { puts "Hello from iteration #{i}" })
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
This does not look bad!
When Yukihiro "matz" Matsumoto designed Ruby almost thirty years ago in early 1993, he did a survey of the core libraries and standard libraries of languages like Smalltalk, Scheme, and Common Lisp to figure out how such methods that take a piece of code as an argument are actually used, and he found that the overwhelming majority of such methods take exactly one code argument and all they do with that argument is call it.
So, he decided to add special language support for a single argument that contains code and can only be called. This argument is both syntactically and semantically lightweight, in particular, it looks syntactically exactly like any other control structure, and it is semantically not an object.
This special language feature, you probably guessed it, are blocks.
Every method in Ruby has an optional block parameter. I can always pass a block to a method. It's up to the method to do anything with the block. Here, for example, the block is useless because Kernel#puts doesn't do anything with a block:
puts("Hello") { puts "from the block" }
# Hello
Because blocks are not objects, you cannot call methods on them. Also, because there can be only one block argument, there is no need to give it a name: if you refer to a block, it's always clear which block because there can be only one. But, if the block doesn't have methods and doesn't have a name, how can we call it?
That's what the yield keyword is for. It temporarily "yields" control flow to the block, or, in other words, it calls the block.
With blocks, our solution would look like this:
class Integer
def my_times(&action_to_be_executed)
raise ArgumentError, "`self` must be non-negative but is `#{inspect}`" if negative?
return enum_for(__callee__) unless block_given?
__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed)
end
protected
def __my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index = 0)
return if zero?
yield index
pred.__my_times_helper(&action_to_be_executed, index + 1)
end
end
3.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# Hello from iteration 0
# Hello from iteration 1
# Hello from iteration 2
0.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
-1.my_times do
puts "Hello from iteration #{i}"
end
# ArgumentError (`self` must be non-negative but is `-1`)
Okay, you might notice that I simplified a bit when I wrote above that the only thing you can do with a block is call it. There are two other things you can do with it:
You can check whether a block argument was passed using Kernel#block_given?. Since blocks are always optional, and blocks have no names, there must be a way to check whether a block was passed or not.
You can "roll up" a block (which is not an object and doesn't have a name) into a Proc object (which is an object) and bind it to a parameter (which gives it a name) using the & ampersand unary prefix sigil in the parameter list of the method. Now that we have an object, and a way to refer to it, we can store it in a variable, return it from a method, or (as we are doing here) pass it along as an argument to a different method, which otherwise wouldn't be possible.
There is also the opposite operation: with the & ampersand unary prefix operator, you can "unroll" a Proc object into a block in an argument list; this makes it so that the method behaves as if you had passed the code that is stored inside the Proc as a literal block argument to the method.
And there you have it! That's what blocks are for: a semantically and syntactically lightweight form of passing code to a method.
There are other possible approaches, of course. The approach that is closest to Ruby is probably Smalltalk. Smalltalk also has a concept called blocks (in fact, that is where Ruby got both the idea and the name from). Similarly to Ruby, Smalltalk blocks have a syntactically light-weight literal form, but they are objects, and you can pass more than one to a method. Thanks to Smalltalk's generally light-weight and simple syntax, especially the keyword method syntax which intersperses parts of the method name with the arguments, even passing multiple blocks to a method call is very concise and readable.
For example, Smalltalk actually does not have an if / then / else conditional expression, in fact, Smalltalk has no control structures at all. Everything is done with methods. So, the way that a conditional works, is that the two boolean classes TrueClass and FalseClass each have a method named ifTrue:ifFalse: which takes two block arguments, and the two implementations will simply either evaluate the first or the second block. For example, the implementation in TrueClass might look a little bit like this (note that Smalltalk has no syntax for classes or methods, instead classes and methods are created in the IDE by creating class objects and method objects via the GUI):
True>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `trueBlock`."
↑trueBlock value
The corresponding implementation in FalseClass would then look like this:
FalseClass>>ifTrue: trueBlock ifFalse: falseBlock
"Answer with the value of `falseBlock`."
↑falseBlock value
And you would call it like this:
2 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"yes"
4 < 3 ifTrue: [ Transcript show: 'yes' ] ifFalse: [ Transcript show: 'no' ].
"no"
In ECMAScript, you can simply use function definitions as expressions, and there is also lightweight syntax for functions.
In the various Lisps, code is just data, and data is code, so you can just pass the code as an argument as data, then inside the function, treat that data as code again.
Scala has call-by-name parameters which are only evaluated when you use their name, and they are evaluated every time you use their name. It would look something like this:
implicit class IntegerTimes(val i: Int) extends AnyVal {
#scala.annotation.tailrec
def times(actionToBeExecuted: => Unit): Unit = {
if (i < 0) throw new Error()
if (i == 0) () else { actionToBeExecuted; (i - 1).times(actionToBeExecuted) }
}
}
3.times { println("Hello") }
// Hello
// Hello
// Hello
I was trying to make my bubble sort shorter and I came up with this
class Array
def bubble_sort!(&block)
block = Proc.new { |a, b| a <=> b } unless block_given?
sorted = each_index.each_cons(2).none? do |i, next_i|
if block.call(self[i], self[next_i]) == 1
self[i], self[next_i] = self[next_i], self[i]
end
end until sorted
self
end
def bubble_sort(&prc)
self.dup.bubble_sort!(&prc)
end
end
I don't particularly like the thing with sorted = --sort code-- until sorted.
I just want to run the each_index.each_cons(s).none? code until it returns true. It's a weird situation that I use until, but the condition is a code I want to run. Any way, my try seems awkward, and ruby usually has a nice concise way of putting things. Is there a better way to do this?
This is just my opinion
have you ever read the ruby source code of each and map to understand what they do?
No, because they have a clear task expressed from the method name and if you test them, they will take an object, some parameters and then return a value to you.
For example if I want to test the String method split()
s = "a new string"
s.split("new")
=> ["a ", " string"]
Do you know if .split() takes a block?
It is one of the core ruby methods, but to call it I don't pass a block 90% of the times, I can understand what it does from the name .split() and from the return value
Focus on the objects you are using, the task the methods should accomplish and their return values.
I read your code and I can not refactor it, I hardly can understand what the code does.
I decided to write down some points, with possibility to follow up:
1) do not use the proc for now, first get the Object Oriented code clean.
2) split bubble_sort! into several methods, each one with a clear task
def ordered_inverted! (bubble_sort!), def invert_values, maybe perform a invert_values until sorted, check if existing methods already perform this sorting functionality
3) write specs for those methods, tdd will push you to keep methods simple and easy to test
4) If those methods do not belong to the Array class, include them in the appropriate class, sometimes overly complicated methods are just performing simple String operations.
5) Reading books about refactoring may actually help more then trying to force the usage of proc and functional programming when not necessary.
After looking into it further I'm fairly sure the best solution is
loop do
break if condition
end
Either that or the way I have it in the question, but I think the loop do version is clearer.
Edit:
Ha, a couple weeks later after I settled for the loop do solution, I stumbled into a better one. You can just use a while or until loop with an empty block like this:
while condition; end
until condition; end
So the bubble sort example in the question can be written like this
class Array
def bubble_sort!(&block)
block = Proc.new { |a, b| a <=> b } unless block_given?
until (each_index.each_cons(2).none? do |i, next_i|
if block.call(self[i], self[next_i]) == 1
self[i], self[next_i] = self[next_i], self[i]
end
end); end
self
end
def bubble_sort(&prc)
self.dup.bubble_sort!(&prc)
end
end
Why is each loop preferred over for loop in Ruby? Is there a difference in time complexity or are they just syntactically different?
Yes, these are two different ways of iterating over, But hope this calculation helps.
require 'benchmark'
a = Array( 1..100000000 )
sum = 0
Benchmark.realtime {
a.each { |x| sum += x }
}
This takes 5.866932 sec
a = Array( 1..100000000 )
sum = 0
Benchmark.realtime {
for x in a
sum += x
end
}
This takes 6.146521 sec.
Though its not a right way to do the benchmarking, there are some other constraints too. But on a single machine, each seems to be a bit faster than for.
The variable referencing an item in iteration is temporary and does not have significance outside of the iteration. It is better if it is hidden from outside of the iteration. With external iterators, such variable is located outside of the iteration block. In the following, e is useful only within do ... end, but is separated from the block, and written outside of it; it does not look easy to a programmer:
for e in [:foo, :bar] do
...
end
With internal iterators, the block variable is defined right inside the block, where it is used. It is easier to read:
[:foo, :bar].each do |e|
...
end
This visibility issue is not just for a programmer. With respect to visibility in the sense of scope, the variable for an external iterator is accessible outside of the iteration:
for e in [:foo] do; end
e # => :foo
whereas in internal iterator, a block variable is invisible from outside:
[:foo].each do |e|; end
e # => undefined local variable or method `e'
The latter is better from the point of view of encapsulation.
When you want to nest the loops, the order of variables would be somewhat backwards with external iterators:
for a in [[:foo, :bar]] do
for e in a do
...
end
end
but with internal iterators, the order is more straightforward:
[[:foo, :bar]].each do |a|
a.each do |e|
...
end
end
With external iterators, you can only use hard-coded Ruby syntax, and you also have to remember the matching between the keyword and the method that is internally called (for calls each), but for internal iterators, you can define your own, which gives flexibility.
each is the Ruby Way. Implements the Iterator Pattern that has decoupling benefits.
Check also this: "for" vs "each" in Ruby
An interesting question. There are several ways of looping in Ruby. I have noted that there is a design principle in Ruby, that when there are multiple ways of doing the same, there are usually subtle differences between them, and each case has its own unique use, its own problem that it solves. So in the end you end up needing to be able to write (and not just to read) all of them.
As for the question about for loop, this is similar to my earlier question whethe for loop is a trap.
Basically there are 2 main explicit ways of looping, one is by iterators (or, more generally, blocks), such as
[1, 2, 3].each { |e| puts e * 10 }
[1, 2, 3].map { |e| e * 10 )
# etc., see Array and Enumerable documentation for more iterator methods.
Connected to this way of iterating is the class Enumerator, which you should strive to understand.
The other way is Pascal-ish looping by while, until and for loops.
for y in [1, 2, 3]
puts y
end
x = 0
while x < 3
puts x; x += 1
end
# same for until loop
Like if and unless, while and until have their tail form, such as
a = 'alligator'
a.chop! until a.chars.last == 'g'
#=> 'allig'
The third very important way of looping is implicit looping, or looping by recursion. Ruby is extremely malleable, all classes are modifiable, hooks can be set up for various events, and this can be exploited to produce most unusual ways of looping. The possibilities are so endless that I don't even know where to start talking about them. Perhaps a good place is the blog by Yusuke Endoh, a well known artist working with Ruby code as his artistic material of choice.
To demonstrate what I mean, consider this loop
class Object
def method_missing sym
s = sym.to_s
if s.chars.last == 'g' then s else eval s.chop end
end
end
alligator
#=> "allig"
Aside of readability issues, the for loop iterates in the Ruby land whereas each does it from native code, so in principle each should be more efficient when iterating all elements in an array.
Loop with each:
arr.each {|x| puts x}
Loop with for:
for i in 0..arr.length
puts arr[i]
end
In the each case we are just passing a code block to a method implemented in the machine's native code (fast code), whereas in the for case, all code must be interpreted and run taking into account all the complexity of the Ruby language.
However for is more flexible and lets you iterate in more complex ways than each does, for example, iterating with a given step.
EDIT
I didn't come across that you can step over a range by using the step() method before calling each(), so the flexibility I claimed for the for loop is actually unjustified.
I'm doing a SaaS course with Ruby. On an exercise, I'm asked to calculate the cartesian product of two sequences by using iterators, blocks and yield.
I ended up with this, by pure guess-and-error, and it seems to work. But I'm not sure about how. I seem to understand the basic blocks and yield usage, but this? Not at all.
class CartProd
include Enumerable
def initialize(a,b)
#a = a
#b = b
end
def each
#a.each{|ae|
#b.each{|be|
yield [ae,be]
}
}
end
end
Some explanation for a noob like me, please?
(PS: I changed the required class name to CartProd so people doing the course can't find the response by googling it so easily)
Let's build this up step-by-step. We will simplify things a bit by taking it out of the class context.
For this example it is intuitive to think of an iterator as being a more-powerful replacement for a traditional for-loop.
So first here's a for-loop version:
seq1 = (0..2)
seq2 = (0..2)
for x in seq1
for y in seq2
p [x,y] # shorthand for puts [x, y].inspect
end
end
Now let's replace that with more Ruby-idiomatic iterator style, explicitly supplying blocks to be executed (i.e., the do...end blocks):
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
p [x,y]
end
end
So far, so good, you've printed out your cartesian product. Now your assignment asks you to use yield as well. The point of yield is to "yield execution", i.e., pass control to another block of code temporarily (optionally passing one or more arguments).
So, although it's not really necessary for this toy example, instead of directly printing the value like above, you can yield the value, and let the caller supply a block that accepts that value and prints it instead.
That could look like this:
def prod(seq1, seq2)
seq1.each do |x|
seq2.each do |y|
yield [x,y]
end
end
end
Callable like this:
prod (1..2), (1..2) do |prod| p prod end
The yield supplies the product for each run of the inner loop, and the yielded value is printed by the block supplied by the caller.
What exactly do you not understand here? You've made an iterator that yields all possible pairs of elements. If you pass CartProd#each a block, it will be executed a.length*b.length times. It's like having two different for cycles folded one into another in any other programming language.
yield simply passes (yields) control to a block of code that has been passed in as part of the method call. The values after the yield keyword are passed into the block as arguments. Once the block has finished execution it passes back control.
So, in your example you could call #each like this:
CartProd.new([1, 2], [3, 4]).each do |pair|
# control is yielded to this block
p pair
# control is returned at end of block
end
This would output each pair of values.
I am trying to understand why do we really need lambda or proc in ruby (or any other language for that matter)?
#method
def add a,b
c = a+b
end
#using proc
def add_proc a,b
f = Proc.new {|x,y| x + y }
f.call a,b
end
#using lambda function
def add_lambda a,b
f = lambda {|x,y| x + y}
f.call a,b
end
puts add 1,1
puts add_proc 1,2
puts add_lambda 1,3
I can do a simple addition using: 1. normal function def, 2. using proc and 3. using lambda.
But why and where use lambda in the real world? Any examples where functions cannot be used and lambda should be used.
It's true, you don't need anonymous functions (or lambdas, or whatever you want to call them). But there are a lot of things you don't need. You don't need classes—just pass all the instance variables around to ordinary functions. Then
class Foo
attr_accessor :bar, :baz
def frob(x)
bar = baz*x
end
end
would become
def new_Foo(bar,baz)
[bar,baz]
end
def bar(foo)
foo[0]
end
# Other attribute accessors stripped for brevity's sake
def frob(foo,x)
foo[0] = foo[1]*x
end
Similarly, you don't need any loops except for loop...end with if and break. I could go on and on.1 But you want to program with classes in Ruby. You want to be able to use while loops, or maybe even array.each { |x| ... }, and you want to be able to use unless instead of if not.
Just like these features, anonymous functions are there to help you express things elegantly, concisely, and sensibly. Being able to write some_function(lambda { |x,y| x + f(y) }) is much nicer than having to write
def temp(x,y)
x + f(y)
end
some_function temp
It's much bulkier to have to break off the flow of code to write out a deffed function, which then has to be given a useless name, when it's just as clear to write the operation in-line. It's true that there's nowhere you must use a lambda, but there are lots of places I'd much rather use a lambda.
Ruby solves a lot of the lambda-using cases with blocks: all the functions like each, map, and open which can take a block as an argument are basically taking a special-cased anonymous function. array.map { |x| f(x) + g(x) } is the same as array.map(&lambda { |x| f(x) + g(x) }) (where the & just makes the lambda "special" in the same way that the bare block is). Again, you could write out a separate deffed function every time—but why would you want to?
Languages other than Ruby which support that style of programming don't have blocks, but often support a lighter-weight lambda syntax, such as Haskell's \x -> f x + g x, or C#'s x => f(x) + g(x);2. Any time I have a function which needs to take some abstract behavior, such as map, or each, or on_clicked, I'm going to be thankful for the ability to pass in a lambda instead of a named function, because it's just that much easier. Eventually, you stop thinking of them as somehow special—they're about as exciting as literal syntax for arrays instead of empty().append(1).append(2).append(3). Just another useful part of the language.
1: In the degenerate case, you really only need eight instructions: +-<>[].,. <> move an imaginary "pointer" along an array; +- increment and decrement the integer in the current cell; [] perform a loop-while-non-zero; and ., do input and output. In fact, you really only need just one instruction, such as subleq a b c (subtract a from b and jump to c if the result is less than or equal to zero).
2: I've never actually used C#, so if that syntax is wrong, feel free to correct it.
Blocks are more-or-less the same thing
Well, in Ruby, one doesn't usually use lambda or proc, because blocks are about the same thing and much more convenient.
The uses are infinite, but we can list some typical cases. One normally thinks of functions as lower-level blocks performing a piece of the processing, perhaps written generally and made into a library.
But quite often one wants to automate the wrapper and provide a custom library. Imagine a function that makes an HTTP or HTTPS connection, or a straight TCP one, feeds the I/O to its client, and then closes the connection. Or perhaps just does the same thing with a plain old file.
So in Ruby we would put the function in a library and have it take a block for the user .. the client .. the "caller" to write his application logic.
In another language this would have to be done with a class that implements an interface, or a function pointer. Ruby has blocks, but they are all examples of a lambda-style design pattern.
1) It is just a convenience. You don't need to name certain blocks
special_sort(array, :compare_proc => lambda { |left, right| left.special_param <=> right.special_param }
(imagine if you had to name all these blocks)
2) #lambda is usually used to create clojures:
def generate_multiple_proc(cofactor)
lambda { |element| element * cofactor }
end
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(2)) # => [2, 3, 5, 8]
[1, 2, 3, 4].map(&generate_multiple_proc(3)) # => [3, 6, 9, 12]
It comes down to style. Lambdas are a a declarative style, methods are an imperative style. Consider this:
Lambda, blocks, procs, are all different types of closure. Now the question is, when and why to use an anonymous closure. I can answer that - at least in ruby!
Closures contain the lexical context of where they were called from. If you call a method from within a method, you do not get the context of where the method was called. This is due to the way the object chain is stored in the AST.
A Closure (lambda) on the other hand, can be passed WITH lexical context through a method, allowing for lazy evaluation.
Also lambdas naturally lend themselves to recursion and enumeration.
In case of OOP, you should create a function in a class only if there should be such an operation on the class according to your domain modeling.
If you need a quick function which can be written inline such as for comparison etc, use a lambda
Also check these SO posts -
When to use lambda, when to use Proc.new?
C# Lambda expressions: Why should I use them?
When to use a lambda in Ruby on Rails?
They're used as "higher-order" functions. Basically, for cases where you pass one function to another, so that the receiving function can call the passed-in one according to its own logic.
This is common in Ruby for iteration, e.g. some_list.each { |item| ... } to do something to each item of some_list. Although notice here that we don't use the keyword lambda; as noted, a block is basically the same thing.
In Python (since we have a language-agnostic tag on this question) you can't write anything quite like a Ruby block, so the lambda keyword comes up more often. However, you can get a similar "shortcut" effect from list comprehensions and generator expressions.
I found this helpful in understanding the differences:
http://www.robertsosinski.com/2008/12/21/understanding-ruby-blocks-procs-and-lambdas/
But in general the point is sometimes your writing a method but you don't know what you're going to want to do at a certain point in that method, so you let the caller decide.
E.g.:
def iterate_over_two_arrays(arr1, arr2, the_proc)
arr1.each do |x|
arr2.each do |y|
# ok I'm iterating over two arrays, but I could do lots of useful things now
# so I'll leave it up to the caller to decide by passing in a proc
the_proc.call(x,y)
end
end
end
Then instead of writing a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_sum method and a iterate_over_two_arrays_and_print_product method you just call:
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x + y }
or
iterate_over_two_arrays([1,2,3], [4,5,6], Proc.new {|x,y| puts x * y }
so it's more flexible.