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.
Related
As I understand -- and I'm here to be corrected if wrong -- good Scheme practice is to do anything requiring looping, repeating with recursion, and, furthermore, overflow won't be a problem because tail-recursion is built-in. Lisp, however, doesn't have protection from overflow, hence, all the loop iterative macros (loop, while, etc). And so in real-world Lisp you usually don't use recursion, while Scheme wants it all but exclusively.
If my assumptions are true, is there a way to be "pure" with Lisp and not risk overflow? Or is this too much swimming against the stream to use recursion in Lisp? I recall from The Little Schemer how they give you a thorough workout with recursion. And there was an earlier edition called The Little Lisper. Did it give you the same recursion workout in Lisp? And then Land of Lisp left me confused about whether loops or recursion was "best practice."
What I'm trying to do is decide whether to use Racket inside of Emacs Org-mode or just use built-in Elisp for beginner students. I want students to stay as purely functional as possible, e.g., I don't want to explain the very new and difficult topic of recursion, then say "Oh, but we won't be using it..."
As I understand -- and I'm here to be corrected if wrong -- good Scheme practice is to do anything requiring looping, repeating with recursion, and, furthermore, overflow won't be a problem because tail-recursion is built-in.
This is correct as far as I know.
Lisp, however, doesn't have protection from overflow [...]
Not exactly. Most self-respective Common Lisp implementations provide tail-call merging (with some restrictions, see https://0branch.com/notes/tco-cl.html). The difference is that there is no requirements from the language specification to have it. That grants compiler writers more freedom when implementing various Common Lisp features. Emacs Lisp does not have TCO, except in the form of libraries like recur or tco (self-recursion).
... hence, all the loop iterative macros (loop, while, etc). And so in real-world Lisp you usually don't use recursion, while Scheme wants it all but exclusively.
The difference is mostly cultural. Take a REPL (Read-Eval-Print-Loop). I think it makes more sense to consider the interaction as a loop rather than a infinitely tail-recursive function. Somehow, there seem to be some reluctance in purely functional languages to even consider loops as a primitive control structure, whereas iterative processes are considered more elegant. Why not have both?
If my assumptions are true, is there a way to be "pure" with Lisp and not risk overflow? Or is this too much swimming against the stream to use recursion in Lisp?
You can certainly use recursion in Lisp, provided you do not abuse it, which should not be the case with small programs. Consider for example that map in OCaml is not tail-recursive, but people still use it regularly. If you use SBCL, there is a section in the manual that explains how to enforce tail-call elimination.
What I'm trying to do is decide whether to use Racket inside of Emacs Org-mode or just use built-in Elisp for beginner students. I want students to stay as purely functional as possible, e.g., I don't want to explain the very new and difficult topic of recursion, then say "Oh, but we won't be using it..."
If you want to teach functional programming, use a more functional language. In other words, between Racket and Emacs Lisp, I'd say Racket is more appropriate for students. There are more materials to teach functional programming with Racket, there is also Typed Racket.
There are a lot of differences between the typical Lisp dialects and the various Scheme dialects:
Scheme
requires tail call optimization
favors tail recursion over imperative loop constructs
dislikes imperative control flow
provides functional abstractions
tries to map control structures to functions (see for example CALL-WITH-CURRENT-CONTINUATION)
implements some looping macros as extensions
Lisp
Parts of this applies for Lisp dialects like Emacs Lisp, Common Lisp or ISLisp.
has low level control flow, for example GOTO like constructs: don't use them in user level code, sometimes they may be useful in macros.
does not standardize or even provide tail call optimization: for maximum portability don't require TCO in your code
provides simple macros: DO, DOTIMES, DOLIST: use them where directly applicable
provides complex macros: LOOP, or ITERATE as a library
provides functional abstractions like MAP, MAPCAR, REDUCE
Implementations typically have hard limits on stack sizes, which makes non-TCO recursive functions problematic. Typically one can set a large stack size upfront or extend the stack size at runtime.
Also tail call optimization has some incompatibilities with dynamic scope constructs like special variables or similar.
For TCO support in Common Lisp see: Tail Call Optimisation in Common Lisp Implementations
Style
Some prefer recursive functions, but I would not use it generally. Generally I (that's my personal opinion) prefer explicit loop constructs over general recursive calls. Others prefer the idea of a more mathematical approach of recursive functions.
If there is a higher-order function like MAP, use that.
If the loop code gets more complex, using a powerful LOOP statement can be useful
In Racket the looping construct of choice is for.
Racket (like Scheme) also has TCO, so in principle you can
write all looping constructs using function calls - it just isn't
very convenient.
There is no Tail Call Optimisation (TCO) in Emacs Lisp, so even tho I personally like recursion very much, I'd generally recommend against its use in Elisp (except of course in those cases where it's the only natural choice).
Elisp as a programming environment is fairly good, but I must agree with "coredump" and would recommend Racket instead, which has great support for beginners.
I'm searching for an algorithm (or an argument of such an algorithm) in functional style which is faster than an imperative one.
I like functional code because it's expressive and mostly easier to read than it's imperative pendants. But I also know that this expressiveness can cost runtime overhead. Not always due to techniques like tail recursion - but often they are slower.
While programming I don't think about runtime costs of functional code because nowadays PCs are very fast and development time is more expensive than runtime. Furthermore for me readability is more important than performance. Nevertheless my programs are fast enough so I rarely need to solve a problem in an imperative way.
There are some algorithms which in practice should be implemented in an imperative style (like sorting algorithms) otherwise in most cases they are too slow or requires lots of memory.
In contrast due to techniques like pattern matching a whole program like a parser written in an functional language may be much faster than one written in an imperative language because of the possibility of compilers to optimize the code.
But are there any algorithms which are faster in a functional style or are there possibilities to setting up arguments of such an algorithm?
A simple reasoning. I don't vouch for terminology, but it seems to make sense.
A functional program, to be executed, will need to be transformed into some set of machine instructions.
All machines (I've heard of) are imperative.
Thus, for every functional program, there's an imperative program (roughly speaking, in assembler language), equivalent to it.
So, you'll probably have to be satisfied with 'expressiveness', until we get 'functional computers'.
The short answer:
Anything that can be easily made parallel because it's free of side-effects will be quicker on a multi-core processor.
QuickSort, for example, scales up quite nicely when used with immutable collections: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quicksort#Parallelization
All else being equal, if you have two algorithms that can reasonably be described as equivalent, except that one uses pure functions on immutable data, while the second relies on in-place mutations, then the first algorithm will scale up to multiple cores with ease.
It may even be the case that your programming language can perform this optimization for you, as with the scalaCL plugin that will compile code to run on your GPU. (I'm wondering now if SIMD instructions make this a "functional" processor)
So given parallel hardware, the first algorithm will perform better, and the more cores you have, the bigger the difference will be.
FWIW there are Purely functional data structures, which benefit from functional programming.
There's also a nice book on Purely Functional Data Structures by Chris Okasaki, which presents data structures from the point of view of functional languages.
Another interesting article Announcing Intel Concurrent Collections for Haskell 0.1, about parallel programming, they note:
Well, it happens that the CnC notion
of a step is a pure function. A step
does nothing but read its inputs and
produce tags and items as output. This
design was chosen to bring CnC to that
elusive but wonderful place called
deterministic parallelism. The
decision had nothing to do with
language preferences. (And indeed, the
primary CnC implementations are for
C++ and Java.)
Yet what a great match Haskell and CnC
would make! Haskell is the only major
language where we can (1) enforce that
steps be pure, and (2) directly
recognize (and leverage!) the fact
that both steps and graph executions
are pure.
Add to that the fact that Haskell is
wonderfully extensible and thus the
CnC "library" can feel almost like a
domain-specific language.
It doesn't say about performance – they promise to discuss some of the implementation details and performance in future posts, – but Haskell with its "pureness" fits nicely into parallel programming.
One could argue that all programs boil down to machine code.
So, if I dis-assemble the machine code (of an imperative program) and tweak the assembler, I could perhaps end up with a faster program. Or I could come up with an "assembler algorithm" that exploits some specific CPU feature, and therefor it really is faster than the imperative language version.
Does this situation lead to the conclusion that we should use assembler everywhere? No, we decided to use imperative languages because they are less cumbersome. We write pieces in assembler because we really need to.
Ideally we should also use FP algorithms because they are less cumbersome to code, and use imperative code when we really need to.
Well, I guess you meant to ask if there is an implementation of an algorithm in functional programming language that is faster than another implementation of the same algorithm but in an imperative language. By "faster" I mean that it performs better in terms of execution time or memory footprint on some inputs according to some measurement that we deem trustworthy.
I do not exclude this possibility. :)
To elaborate on Yasir Arsanukaev's answer, purely functional data structures can be faster than mutable data structures in some situations becuase they share pieces of their structure. Thus in places where you might have to copy a whole array or list in an imperative language, where you can get away with a fraction of the copying because you can change (and copy) only a small part of the data structure. Lists in functional languages are like this -- multiple lists can share the same tail since nothing can be modified. (This can be done in imperative languages, but usually isn't, because within the imperative paradigm, people aren't usually used to talking about immutable data.)
Also, lazy evaluation in functional languages (particularly Haskell which is lazy by default) can also be very advantageous because it can eliminate code execution when the code's results won't actually be used. (One can be very careful not to run this code in the first place in imperative languages, however.)
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 :)
Like lots of you guys on SO, I often write in several languages. And when it comes to planning stuff, (or even answering some SO questions), I actually think and write in some unspecified hybrid language. Although I used to be taught to do this using flow diagrams or UML-like diagrams, in retrospect, I find "my" pseudocode language has components of C, Python, Java, bash, Matlab, perl, Basic. I seem to unconsciously select the idiom best suited to expressing the concept/algorithm.
Common idioms might include Java-like braces for scope, pythonic list comprehensions or indentation, C++like inheritance, C#-style lambdas, matlab-like slices and matrix operations.
I noticed that it's actually quite easy for people to recognise exactly what I'm triying to do, and quite easy for people to intelligently translate into other languages. Of course, that step involves considering the corner cases, and the moments where each language behaves idiosyncratically.
But in reality, most of these languages share a subset of keywords and library functions which generally behave identically - maths functions, type names, while/for/if etc. Clearly I'd have to exclude many 'odd' languages like lisp, APL derivatives, but...
So my questions are,
Does code already exist that recognises the programming language of a text file? (Surely this must be a less complicated task than eclipse's syntax trees or than google translate's language guessing feature, right?) In fact, does the SO syntax highlighter do anything like this?
Is it theoretically possible to create a single interpreter or compiler that recognises what language idiom you're using at any moment and (maybe "intelligently") executes or translates to a runnable form. And flags the corner cases where my syntax is ambiguous with regards to behaviour. Immediate difficulties I see include: knowing when to switch between indentation-dependent and brace-dependent modes, recognising funny operators (like *pointer vs *kwargs) and knowing when to use list vs array-like representations.
Is there any language or interpreter in existence, that can manage this kind of flexible interpreting?
Have I missed an obvious obstacle to this being possible?
edit
Thanks all for your answers and ideas. I am planning to write a constraint-based heuristic translator that could, potentially, "solve" code for the intended meaning and translate into real python code. It will notice keywords from many common languages, and will use syntactic clues to disambiguate the human's intentions - like spacing, brackets, optional helper words like let or then, context of how variables are previously used etc, plus knowledge of common conventions (like capital names, i for iteration, and some simplistic limited understanding of naming of variables/methods e.g containing the word get, asynchronous, count, last, previous, my etc). In real pseudocode, variable naming is as informative as the operations themselves!
Using these clues it will create assumptions as to the implementation of each operation (like 0/1 based indexing, when should exceptions be caught or ignored, what variables ought to be const/global/local, where to start and end execution, and what bits should be in separate threads, notice when numerical units match / need converting). Each assumption will have a given certainty - and the program will list the assumptions on each statement, as it coaxes what you write into something executable!
For each assumption, you can 'clarify' your code if you don't like the initial interpretation. The libraries issue is very interesting. My translator, like some IDE's, will read all definitions available from all modules, use some statistics about which classes/methods are used most frequently and in what contexts, and just guess! (adding a note to the program to say why it guessed as such...) I guess it should attempt to execute everything, and warn you about what it doesn't like. It should allow anything, but let you know what the several alternative interpretations are, if you're being ambiguous.
It will certainly be some time before it can manage such unusual examples like #Albin Sunnanbo's ImportantCustomer example. But I'll let you know how I get on!
I think that is quite useless for everything but toy examples and strict mathematical algorithms. For everything else the language is not just the language. There are lots of standard libraries and whole environments around the languages. I think I write almost as many lines of library calls as I write "actual code".
In C# you have .NET Framework, in C++ you have STL, in Java you have some Java libraries, etc.
The difference between those libraries are too big to be just syntactic nuances.
<subjective>
There has been attempts at unifying language constructs of different languages to a "unified syntax". That was called 4GL language and never really took of.
</subjective>
As a side note I have seen a code example about a page long that was valid as c#, Java and Java script code. That can serve as an example of where it is impossible to determine the actual language used.
Edit:
Besides, the whole purpose of pseudocode is that it does not need to compile in any way. The reason you write pseudocode is to create a "sketch", however sloppy you like.
foreach c in ImportantCustomers{== OrderValue >=$1M}
SendMailInviteToSpecialEvent(c)
Now tell me what language it is and write an interpreter for that.
To detect what programming language is used: Detecting programming language from a snippet
I think it should be possible. The approach in 1. could be leveraged to do this, I think. I would try to do it iteratively: detect the syntax used in the first line/clause of code, "compile" it to intermediate form based on that detection, along with any important syntax (e.g. begin/end wrappers). Then the next line/clause etc. Basically write a parser that attempts to recognize each "chunk". Ambiguity could be flagged by the same algorithm.
I doubt that this has been done ... seems like the cognitive load of learning to write e.g. python-compatible pseudocode would be much easier than trying to debug the cases where your interpreter fails.
a. I think the biggest problem is that most pseudocode is invalid in any language. For example, I might completely skip object initialization in a block of pseudocode because for a human reader it is almost always straightforward to infer. But for your case it might be completely invalid in the language syntax of choice, and it might be impossible to automatically determine e.g. the class of the object (it might not even exist). Etc.
b. I think the best you can hope for is an interpreter that "works" (subject to 4a) for your pseudocode only, no-one else's.
Note that I don't think that 4a,4b are necessarily obstacles to it being possible. I just think it won't be useful for any practical purpose.
Recognizing what language a program is in is really not that big a deal. Recognizing the language of a snippet is more difficult, and recognizing snippets that aren't clearly delimited (what do you do if four lines are Python and the next one is C or Java?) is going to be really difficult.
Assuming you got the lines assigned to the right language, doing any sort of compilation would require specialized compilers for all languages that would cooperate. This is a tremendous job in itself.
Moreover, when you write pseudo-code you aren't worrying about the syntax. (If you are, you're doing it wrong.) You'll wind up with code that simply can't be compiled because it's incomplete or even contradictory.
And, assuming you overcame all these obstacles, how certain would you be that the pseudo-code was being interpreted the way you were thinking?
What you would have would be a new computer language, that you would have to write correct programs in. It would be a sprawling and ambiguous language, very difficult to work with properly. It would require great care in its use. It would be almost exactly what you don't want in pseudo-code. The value of pseudo-code is that you can quickly sketch out your algorithms, without worrying about the details. That would be completely lost.
If you want an easy-to-write language, learn one. Python is a good choice. Use pseudo-code for sketching out how processing is supposed to occur, not as a compilable language.
An interesting approach would be a "type-as-you-go" pseudocode interpreter. That is, you would set the language to be used up front, and then it would attempt to convert the pseudo code to real code, in real time, as you typed. An interactive facility could be used to clarify ambiguous stuff and allow corrections. Part of the mechanism could be a library of code which the converter tried to match. Over time, it could learn and adapt its translation based on the habits of a particular user.
People who program all the time will probably prefer to just use the language in most cases. However, I could see the above being a great boon to learners, "non-programmer programmers" such as scientists, and for use in brainstorming sessions with programmers of various languages and skill levels.
-Neil
Programs interpreting human input need to be given the option of saying "I don't know." The language PL/I is a famous example of a system designed to find a reasonable interpretation of anything resembling a computer program that could cause havoc when it guessed wrong: see http://horningtales.blogspot.com/2006/10/my-first-pli-program.html
Note that in the later language C++, when it resolves possible ambiguities it limits the scope of the type coercions it tries, and that it will flag an error if there is not a unique best interpretation.
I have a feeling that the answer to 2. is NO. All I need to prove it false is a code snippet that can be interpreted in more than one way by a competent programmer.
Does code already exist that
recognises the programming language
of a text file?
Yes, the Unix file command.
(Surely this must be a less
complicated task than eclipse's syntax
trees or than google translate's
language guessing feature, right?) In
fact, does the SO syntax highlighter
do anything like this?
As far as I can tell, SO has a one-size-fits-all syntax highlighter that tries to combine the keywords and comment syntax of every major language. Sometimes it gets it wrong:
def median(seq):
"""Returns the median of a list."""
seq_sorted = sorted(seq)
if len(seq) & 1:
# For an odd-length list, return the middle item
return seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2]
else:
# For an even-length list, return the mean of the 2 middle items
return (seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2 - 1] + seq_sorted[len(seq) // 2]) / 2
Note that SO's highlighter assumes that // starts a C++-style comment, but in Python it's the integer division operator.
This is going to be a major problem if you try to combine multiple languages into one. What do you do if the same token has different meanings in different languages? Similar situations are:
Is ^ exponentiation like in BASIC, or bitwise XOR like in C?
Is || logical OR like in C, or string concatenation like in SQL?
What is 1 + "2"? Is the number converted to a string (giving "12"), or is the string converted to a number (giving 3)?
Is there any language or interpreter
in existence, that can manage this
kind of flexible interpreting?
On another forum, I heard a story of a compiler (IIRC, for FORTRAN) that would compile any program regardless of syntax errors. If you had the line
= Y + Z
The compiler would recognize that a variable was missing and automatically convert the statement to X = Y + Z, regardless of whether you had an X in your program or not.
This programmer had a convention of starting comment blocks with a line of hyphens, like this:
C ----------------------------------------
But one day, they forgot the leading C, and the compiler choked trying to add dozens of variables between what it thought was subtraction operators.
"Flexible parsing" is not always a good thing.
To create a "pseudocode interpreter," it might be necessary to design a programming language that allows user-defined extensions to its syntax. There already are several programming languages with this feature, such as Coq, Seed7, Agda, and Lever. A particularly interesting example is the Inform programming language, since its syntax is essentially "structured English."
The Coq programming language allows "syntax extensions", so the language can be extended to parse new operators:
Notation "A /\ B" := (and A B).
Similarly, the Seed7 programming language can be extended to parse "pseudocode" using "structured syntax definitions." The while loop in Seed7 is defined in this way:
syntax expr: .while.().do.().end.while is -> 25;
Alternatively, it might be possible to "train" a statistical machine translation system to translate pseudocode into a real programming language, though this would require a large corpus of parallel texts.
What do you lose in practice when you choose a statically-typed language such as Scala (or F#, Haskell, C#) instead of dynamically-typed ones like Ruby, Python, Clojure, Groovy (which have macros or runtime metaprogramming capabilities)? Please consider best statically-typed languages and best (in your opinion) dynamically-typed languages, not the worst ones.
Answers Summary:
Key advantages of dynamic languages like Ruby over statically-typed language like Scala IMHO are:
Quick edit-run cycle (does JavaRebel reduces the gap?)
Currently community of Scala/Lift is much smaller then of Ruby/Rails or Python/Django
Possible to modify type definitions (though motivation or need for that is not very clear)
In principle, you give up being able to ignore what type you're using when it is not clear (in the static context) what the right thing to do is, and that's about it.
Since complex type-checking can be rather time-consuming, you also probably are forced to give up fast on-line metaprogramming.
In practice, with Scala, you give up very little else--and nothing that I particularly care about. You can't inject new methods, but you can compile and run new code. You do have to specify types in function arguments (and the return type with recursive functions), which is slightly annoying if you never make type errors yourself. Since it compiles each command, the Scala REPL isn't as snappy as e.g. the Python shell. And since it uses Java reflection mechanisms, you don't have quite the ease of online inspection that you do with e.g. Python (not without building your own inspection library, anyway).
The choice of which static or dynamic language is more significant than the static/dynamic choice itself. Some dynamic languages have good performance and good tools. Some static languages can be concise, expressive, and incremental. Some languages have few of these qualities, but do have large libraries of proven code.
Dynamic languages tend to have much more flexible type systems. For example, Python lets you inject a new method into an existing classes, or even into a single object.
Many (not all) static languages lack the facility to construct complex literals. For instance, languages like C# and Java cannot easily mimic the following JavaScript { 'request':{'type':'GET', 'path':mypath}, 'oncomplete':function(response) { alert(response.result) } }.
Dynamic languages have very fluid semantics. Python allows import statements, function definitions and class definitions to appear inside functions and if statements.
eval is a staple of most dynamic languages and few static languages.
Higher order programming is easier (in my subjective opinion) in dynamic languages than static languages, due to the awkwardness of having to fully specify the types of function parameters.
This is particulary so with recursive HOP constructs where the type system can really get in the way.
Dynamic language users don't have to deal with covariance and contravariance.
Generic programming comes practically free in dynamic languages.
I'm not sure if you lose anything but simplicity. Static type systems are an additional burden to learn.
I suppose you usually also lose eval, but I never use it, even in dynamic languages.
I find the issue is much more about everything else when it comes to choosing which language to use for a given task. Tooling, culture, libraries are all much more interesting than typing when it comes to solving a problem with a language.
Programming language research, on the other hand, is completely different. :)
Some criticism of Scala has been expressed by Steve Yegge here and here, and by Guido van Rossum, who mainly attacked Scala's type system complexity. They clearly aren't "Scala programmers" though. On the other hand, here's some praise from James Strachan.
My 2 cents...
IMO (strong) statically-typed languages might reduce the amount of necessary testing code, because some of that work will be done by the compiler. On the other hand, if the compiling step is relatively long, it makes it more difficult to do "incremental-style" programming, which in the real life might result in error-prone code that was only tested to pass the compiler.
On the other hand, dynamically-typed languages feel like there is less threshold to change things, that might reduce the responding time from the point of bug-fixing and improvement, and as a result might provide a smoother curve during application development: handling constant flow of small changes is easier/less risky than handling changes which are coming in bug chunks.
For example, for the project where the design is very unclear and is supposed to change often, it might have been easier to use dynamic language than a static one, if it helps reduce interdependencies between different parts. (I don't insist on that one though:) )
I think Scala sits somewhere in between (e.g. you don't have to explicitly specify types of the variables, which might ease up code maintenance in comparison with e.g. C++, but if you end up with the wrong assumption about types, the compiler will remind about it, unlike in PHP where you can write whatever and if you don't have good tests covering the functionality, you are doomed to find it out when everything is live and bleeding). Might be terribly wrong of course :)
In my opinion, the difference between the static and dynamic typing comes down to the style of coding. Although there is structural types in Scala, most of the time the programmer is thinking in terms of the type of the object including cool gadgets like trait. On the other hand, I think Python/Javascript/Ruby programmers think in terms of prototype of the object (list of methods and properties), which is slightly different from types.
For example, suppose there's a family of classes called Vehicle whose subclasses include Plane, Train, and Automobile; and another family of classes called Animal whose subclasses include Cat, Dog, and Horse. A Scala programmer would probably create a trait called Transportation or something which has
def ride: SomeResult
def ride(rider: Someone): SomeResult
as a member, so she can handle both Train and Horse as a means of transportation. A Python programmer would just pass the train object without additional code. At the run time the language figures out that the object supports ride.
The fact that the method invocations are resolved at the runtime allows languages like Python and Ruby to have libraries that redefines the meaning of properties or methods. A good example of that is O/R mapping or XML data binding, in which undefined property name is interpreted to be the field name in a table/XML type. I think this is what people mean by "flexibility."
In my very limited experience of using dynamic languages, I think it's faster coding in them as long as you don't make mistakes. And probably as you or your coworkers get good at coding in dynamic language, they would make less mistakes or start writing more unit tests (good luck). In my limited experience, it took me very long to find simple errors in dynamic languages that Scala can catch in a second. Also having all types at compile time makes refactoring easier.