Haskell – Mixing Erlang and Haskell

The blog post you quoted overstates its claim a bit. FP doesn't eliminate the need for design patterns. The term "design patterns" just isn't widely used to describe the same thing in FP languages. But they exist. Functional languages have plenty of best practice rules of the form "when you encounter problem X, use code that looks like Y", which is basically what a design pattern is.

However, it's correct that most OOP-specific design patterns are pretty much irrelevant in functional languages.

I don't think it should be particularly controversial to say that design patterns in general only exist to patch up shortcomings in the language. And if another language can solve the same problem trivially, that other language won't have need of a design pattern for it. Users of that language may not even be aware that the problem exists, because, well, it's not a problem in that language.

Here is what the Gang of Four has to say about this issue:

The choice of programming language is important because it influences one's point of view. Our patterns assume Smalltalk/C++-level language features, and that choice determines what can and cannot be implemented easily. If we assumed procedural languages, we might have included design patterns called "Inheritance", "Encapsulation," and "Polymorphism". Similarly, some of our patterns are supported directly by the less common object-oriented languages. CLOS has multi-methods, for example, which lessen the need for a pattern such as Visitor. In fact, there are enough differences between Smalltalk and C++ to mean that some patterns can be expressed more easily in one language than the other. (See Iterator for example.)

(The above is a quote from the Introduction to the Design Patterns book, page 4, paragraph 3)

The main features of functional programming include functions as first-class values, currying, immutable values, etc. It doesn't seem obvious to me that OO design patterns are approximating any of those features.

What is the command pattern, if not an approximation of first-class functions? :) In an FP language, you'd simply pass a function as the argument to another function. In an OOP language, you have to wrap up the function in a class, which you can instantiate and then pass that object to the other function. The effect is the same, but in OOP it's called a design pattern, and it takes a whole lot more code. And what is the abstract factory pattern, if not currying? Pass parameters to a function a bit at a time, to configure what kind of value it spits out when you finally call it.

So yes, several GoF design patterns are rendered redundant in FP languages, because more powerful and easier to use alternatives exist.

But of course there are still design patterns which are not solved by FP languages. What is the FP equivalent of a singleton? (Disregarding for a moment that singletons are generally a terrible pattern to use.)

And it works both ways too. As I said, FP has its design patterns too; people just don't usually think of them as such.

But you may have run across monads. What are they, if not a design pattern for "dealing with global state"? That's a problem that's so simple in OOP languages that no equivalent design pattern exists there.

We don't need a design pattern for "increment a static variable", or "read from that socket", because it's just what you do.

Saying a monad is a design pattern is as absurd as saying the Integers with their usual operations and zero element is a design pattern. No, a monad is a mathematical pattern, not a design pattern.

In (pure) functional languages, side effects and mutable state are impossible, unless you work around it with the monad "design pattern", or any of the other methods for allowing the same thing.

Additionally, in functional languages which support OOP (such as F# and OCaml), it seems obvious to me that programmers using these languages would use the same design patterns found available to every other OOP language. In fact, right now I use F# and OCaml everyday, and there are no striking differences between the patterns I use in these languages vs the patterns I use when I write in Java.

Perhaps because you're still thinking imperatively? A lot of people, after dealing with imperative languages all their lives, have a hard time giving up on that habit when they try a functional language. (I've seen some pretty funny attempts at F#, where literally every function was just a string of 'let' statements, basically as if you'd taken a C program, and replaced all semicolons with 'let'. :))

But another possibility might be that you just haven't realized that you're solving problems trivially which would require design patterns in an OOP language.

When you use currying, or pass a function as an argument to another, stop and think about how you'd do that in an OOP language.

Is there any truth to the claim that functional programming eliminates the need for OOP design patterns?

Yep. :) When you work in a FP language, you no longer need the OOP-specific design patterns. But you still need some general design patterns, like MVC or other non-OOP specific stuff, and you need a couple of new FP-specific "design patterns" instead. All languages have their shortcomings, and design patterns are usually how we work around them.

Anyway, you may find it interesting to try your hand at "cleaner" FP languages, like ML (my personal favorite, at least for learning purposes), or Haskell, where you don't have the OOP crutch to fall back on when you're faced with something new.

As expected, a few people objected to my definition of design patterns as "patching up shortcomings in a language", so here's my justification:

As already said, most design patterns are specific to one programming paradigm, or sometimes even one specific language. Often, they solve problems that only exist in that paradigm (see monads for FP, or abstract factories for OOP).

Why doesn't the abstract factory pattern exist in FP? Because the problem it tries to solve does not exist there.

So, if a problem exists in OOP languages, which does not exist in FP languages, then clearly that is a shortcoming of OOP languages. The problem can be solved, but your language does not do so, but requires a bunch of boilerplate code from you to work around it. Ideally, we'd like our programming language to magically make all problems go away. Any problem that is still there is in principle a shortcoming of the language. ;)

A similar question was asked, but it didn't ask about statics.

Summary of what static, heap, and stack memory are:

• A static variable is basically a global variable, even if you cannot access it globally. Usually there is an address for it that is in the executable itself. There is only one copy for the entire program. No matter how many times you go into a function call (or class) (and in how many threads!) the variable is referring to the same memory location.

• The heap is a bunch of memory that can be used dynamically. If you want 4kb for an object then the dynamic allocator will look through its list of free space in the heap, pick out a 4kb chunk, and give it to you. Generally, the dynamic memory allocator (malloc, new, et c.) starts at the end of memory and works backwards.

• Explaining how a stack grows and shrinks is a bit outside the scope of this answer, but suffice to say you always add and remove from the end only. Stacks usually start high and grow down to lower addresses. You run out of memory when the stack meets the dynamic allocator somewhere in the middle (but refer to physical versus virtual memory and fragmentation). Multiple threads will require multiple stacks (the process generally reserves a minimum size for the stack).

When you would want to use each one:

• Statics/globals are useful for memory that you know you will always need and you know that you don't ever want to deallocate. (By the way, embedded environments may be thought of as having only static memory... the stack and heap are part of a known address space shared by a third memory type: the program code. Programs will often do dynamic allocation out of their static memory when they need things like linked lists. But regardless, the static memory itself (the buffer) is not itself "allocated", but rather other objects are allocated out of the memory held by the buffer for this purpose. You can do this in non-embedded as well, and console games will frequently eschew the built in dynamic memory mechanisms in favor of tightly controlling the allocation process by using buffers of preset sizes for all allocations.)

• Stack variables are useful for when you know that as long as the function is in scope (on the stack somewhere), you will want the variables to remain. Stacks are nice for variables that you need for the code where they are located, but which isn't needed outside that code. They are also really nice for when you are accessing a resource, like a file, and want the resource to automatically go away when you leave that code.

• Heap allocations (dynamically allocated memory) is useful when you want to be more flexible than the above. Frequently, a function gets called to respond to an event (the user clicks the "create box" button). The proper response may require allocating a new object (a new Box object) that should stick around long after the function is exited, so it can't be on the stack. But you don't know how many boxes you would want at the start of the program, so it can't be a static.

Garbage Collection

I've heard a lot lately about how great Garbage Collectors are, so maybe a bit of a dissenting voice would be helpful.

Garbage Collection is a wonderful mechanism for when performance is not a huge issue. I hear GCs are getting better and more sophisticated, but the fact is, you may be forced to accept a performance penalty (depending upon use case). And if you're lazy, it still may not work properly. At the best of times, Garbage Collectors realize that your memory goes away when it realizes that there are no more references to it (see reference counting). But, if you have an object that refers to itself (possibly by referring to another object which refers back), then reference counting alone will not indicate that the memory can be deleted. In this case, the GC needs to look at the entire reference soup and figure out if there are any islands that are only referred to by themselves. Offhand, I'd guess that to be an O(n^2) operation, but whatever it is, it can get bad if you are at all concerned with performance. (Edit: Martin B points out that it is O(n) for reasonably efficient algorithms. That is still O(n) too much if you are concerned with performance and can deallocate in constant time without garbage collection.)

Personally, when I hear people say that C++ doesn't have garbage collection, my mind tags that as a feature of C++, but I'm probably in the minority. Probably the hardest thing for people to learn about programming in C and C++ are pointers and how to correctly handle their dynamic memory allocations. Some other languages, like Python, would be horrible without GC, so I think it comes down to what you want out of a language. If you want dependable performance, then C++ without garbage collection is the only thing this side of Fortran that I can think of. If you want ease of use and training wheels (to save you from crashing without requiring that you learn "proper" memory management), pick something with a GC. Even if you know how to manage memory well, it will save you time which you can spend optimizing other code. There really isn't much of a performance penalty anymore, but if you really need dependable performance (and the ability to know exactly what is going on, when, under the covers) then I'd stick with C++. There is a reason that every major game engine that I've ever heard of is in C++ (if not C or assembly). Python, et al are fine for scripting, but not the main game engine.