Is functional programming better for modularity?

Ismael Figueroa, R. Robbes
{"title":"Is functional programming better for modularity?","authors":"Ismael Figueroa, R. Robbes","doi":"10.1145/2846680.2846689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In 1989 John Hughes published an influential position paper entitled Why Functional Programming Matters. The article extolls the virtues of lazy functional programming by developing several examples: the Newton-Rhapson squares root method, numerical differentiation and integration, and an alpha-beta minimax search. A main conclusion of that work is that higher-order functions and lazy evaluation significantly contribute to modularity. We have found that recent articles from 2010 to 2014 cite Hughes' work as seminal work supporting that functional programming is, in general, good for modularity. We believe this reflects an unstated hypothesis in part of the research community: functional programming is inherently better at modularity than other paradigms such as typical procedural and object-oriented programming. To the best of our knowledge there are no (large-scale) empirical evaluations of this characteristic. We discuss the influence of Why Functional Programming Matters on current beliefs regarding the advantages of functional programming, the recent citations that intrigues us, and provide a small experiment on the GHC Haskell compiler, suggesting the existence of modularity issues in it.","PeriodicalId":213941,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","volume":"79 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 6th Workshop on Evaluation and Usability of Programming Languages and Tools","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2846680.2846689","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In 1989 John Hughes published an influential position paper entitled Why Functional Programming Matters. The article extolls the virtues of lazy functional programming by developing several examples: the Newton-Rhapson squares root method, numerical differentiation and integration, and an alpha-beta minimax search. A main conclusion of that work is that higher-order functions and lazy evaluation significantly contribute to modularity. We have found that recent articles from 2010 to 2014 cite Hughes' work as seminal work supporting that functional programming is, in general, good for modularity. We believe this reflects an unstated hypothesis in part of the research community: functional programming is inherently better at modularity than other paradigms such as typical procedural and object-oriented programming. To the best of our knowledge there are no (large-scale) empirical evaluations of this characteristic. We discuss the influence of Why Functional Programming Matters on current beliefs regarding the advantages of functional programming, the recent citations that intrigues us, and provide a small experiment on the GHC Haskell compiler, suggesting the existence of modularity issues in it.
函数式编程更适合模块化吗?
1989年,John Hughes发表了一篇很有影响力的论文,题为《为什么函数式编程很重要》。本文通过开发几个示例来赞扬懒惰函数式编程的优点:Newton-Rhapson平方根方法、数值微分和积分以及极大极小搜索。这项工作的一个主要结论是,高阶函数和惰性求值显著地促进了模块化。我们发现,最近从2010年到2014年的文章都引用Hughes的工作作为支持函数式编程总体上有利于模块化的开创性工作。我们认为这反映了部分研究界的一个未陈述的假设:函数式编程在模块化方面天生就比其他范式(如典型的过程式和面向对象编程)更好。据我们所知,还没有对这一特性进行(大规模的)实证评估。我们讨论了《为什么函数式编程很重要》对当前关于函数式编程优势的看法的影响,以及最近引起我们兴趣的引用,并提供了一个关于GHC Haskell编译器的小实验,表明其中存在模块化问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信