[Haskell] Newbie quick questions
mike at mikeandkellycrowe.com
Tue Oct 4 09:11:20 EDT 2005
Thanks, all, especially Cale for the detail.
This may be unfair to ask, but is anybody willing to give an example?
There are great examples for writing factorials. However, that's not
really useful. I'm looking for a real-world example of using the
language. Specifically, the first page of About Haskell states:
> WOW! I basically wrote this without testing just thinking about my
> program in terms of transformations between types.
What I'm still missing is how to use this idea of functional programming
to tie all this together. Let's say, for example, I want to write a
data input system for a database. Consider these two examples:
I think I understand how to take the following example (and others in
that library) and expand to a complete UI for the data input:
I also looked over the examples in http://htoolkit.sourceforge.net/ for
writing to a SQL database. So I can see how to save the data. The
following example I get for inserting:
insertRecords :: Connection -> IO ()
insertRecords c = do
execute c "insert into Test(id,name) values (1,'Test1')"
How, though, would I start? If I did this in an imperative language, I
might do it like (in Python):
if gridCtrl.Show(): # returns True if user
exits pressing Save
data = gridCtrl.getData()
In Haskell, how would you start this at the top? How would you define a
relationship between two modules?
If this is more detailed than I should ask in this list, please LMK.
Cale Gibbard wrote:
>I wouldn't really consider any of those a particularly quick question,
>but I'll give them a shot :)
>On 04/10/05, Mike Crowe <mike at mikeandkellycrowe.com> wrote:
>>I ran across Haskell at the Great Win32 Computer Language Shootout. A
>>friend approached me with a potential large application to develop. The
>>idea of a language which can reduce time to design and make better code
>>is very intriguing.
>>I was looking at prototyping in Python using wxWindows as the GUI. I
>>see Haskell has wxWindows libraries as well.
>>So, here's some newbie questions I couldn't get from 2-3h on the various
>>1) Can I develop a Windows application to sell? Or is Haskell not
>>really geared for that?
>Well, of course -- the compilers are free, but there's no reason I can
>see that you couldn't sell an app that was written in Haskell. You'd
>need to be careful about the licenses of libraries that you use. I
>think that binaries produced with GHC are currently linked with libgmp
>which is under the LGPL, so you may have to be careful there as well.
>There are a variety of cross platform GUI libraries available.
>>2) Say a team wants to develop a larger application, like a CRM system.
>>In "thinking" in functional programming, can a team split up work and
>>implementation and work together? In other words, how easily does
>>Haskell adapt to a team approach?
>Haskell supports quite a few different abstractions which would let
>you code things separately. In fact, most Haskell code is
>referentially transparent, so you usually don't even need the rest of
>the app to run in order to properly test a particular function (just
>the dependencies of that function). The type system is very nice at
>eliminating potential for bugs and helping to document how things fit
>The largest application that I've written personally is a pipeline
>scheduler and register allocator as part of a compiler for a high
>level signal processing language. The algorithm was a search and
>backtracking algorithm, which carried on into the register allocation
>(if a schedule couldn't be register allocated, it would have to
>backtrack into the scheduler). A nice thing here is that I didn't have
>to think of it as such, as all the backtracking occurred
>automatically, as I used the list monad for nondeterminism. After
>design of the algorithm which would be used, it only took a couple
>weeks to implement and test and was around 1000 lines, which was about
>1/2 documentation, and ~250 lines of which was a parser generator for
>an assembly/dependency language, which built a parser based on the
>opcodes available. I suspect that a similar project in C would be at
>least 10 times as much code, and would not have been manageable in the
>time I had.
>Many things are very elegantly expressed in Haskell. I recommend that
>you try writing some small applications in it to get a feel for what
>>3) Again, using a CRM tool as an example, what is the advantage to
>>developing an application like this in Haskell vs. any other language?
>>If I really invest the time, can I get this done quicker in Haskell?
>>Sell me on this, please.
>Haskell has quite a lot of nice features which help in various
>different ways. I won't even try to list them all for you, but point
>out a few I find nice. This really takes some exploring on your own in
>order to find out what is available, and how it might help. Also keep
>in mind that a lot has been written on the wiki
>(http://www.haskell.org/hawiki/) and in these mailing lists as to neat
>ways in which to use Haskell's features.
>Referential transparency I already mentioned, is incredibly nice to
>have. It basically consists of the guarantee that functions are
>completely determined by what values they return for given inputs -
>there is no hidden global state or side effects. This makes it much
>easier to prove that programs do what they are supposed to do, as well
>as to understand the code.
>The type system itself is marvellous in its ability to control how
>code is used and catch bugs at compile time, and prove various simple
>constraints hold on the code. To a very large extent, when programs
>compile, they also work as intended. Of course there are still bugs
>involved with using the wrong algorithm, but nothing can really
>prevent that. The type system catches a large portion of the errors
>which occur from attempting to fit existing pieces of code together in
>an unsuitable way.
>This is incredibly helpful when approaching a large library of
>existing code and wanting to write a new function based on it. The
>first thing to do is to look at the type of the function you want to
>write, and the types of the functions available. Your options in
>searching for useful code will often be quite restricted by the types
>which makes your job easier.
>When state and side effects are needed in Haskell, these things
>(though not only these things) are treated specially through the use
>of monads, which are a nice abstraction of both containers and models
>of computation. The monad being used occurs directly in the types of
>the functions and values involved, making it clear when it is in use,
>and preventing abuses.
>For example, if I have a function of type String -> String, then it
>cannot launch missiles (or do any IO whatsoever) while computing its
>result, simply because of its type. If it could possibly do some IO,
>it would have the type String -> IO String, which is somewhat rarer,
>and can not be used in the same places as a function of type String ->
>String. At first, this seems inconvenient, but in general, it helps to
>structure your program in such a way that makes it easier to reason
>about and work with.
>>4) I'm a very top-down programmer. I like to start at the "big-picture"
>>and work my way down in implementation. Does this adapt to Haskell, or
>>am I missing the point?
>From my experience, Haskell is quite good at this. You might be
>interested in type classes, which are effectively a way to express a
>relation between types in a program, and specify functionality between
>those types wherever the relation holds. This is how "overloaded"
>functions work in Haskell. For example, in the standard Prelude which
>is generally used in every Haskell program, there is the class Eq:
>class Eq a where
> (==), (/=) :: a -> a -> Bool
> -- Minimal complete definition:
> -- (==) or (/=)
> x /= y = not (x == y)
> x == y = not (x /= y)
>This single-parameter class basically defines the equality testing
>operations. If "Eq a" holds for some type "a", then it is possible to
>compare values of that type for equality. When you create types of
>your own, you get to specify an instance of Eq for your type to say
>how they should be compared, or write "deriving Eq" at the end of your
>data or newtype declaration, which will provide a sane default.
>Typeclasses in general let you specify functionality in an abstract
>way, and then specify a variety of implementations for that
>functionality and keep that entirely separate from the code which uses
>it. In this way, it is possible to provide simple instances when
>starting out, and provide more sophisticated implementations of the
>same behaviour later, without rewriting the code which uses it at all.
>(Just providing an input of a different type is enough.)
>hope this is useful
> - Cale
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell