Learning about higher order functions that are available to collections in the Swift language has been exciting. I think the answer to my question is no because it seems higher order functions simplifies the code that needs to be written for the overall underlying process. However, I'd like a second opinion from the community just to be sure.
Using higher order functions has no effect on the time & space complexity. Higher order functions are simply a wrapper to replace for-loops (and rid of mutable states)
Related
I believe (from doing some reading) that reading/writing data across the bus from CPU caches to main memory places a considerable constraint on how fast a computational task (which needs to move data across the bus) can complete - the Von Neumann bottleneck.
I have come across a few articles so far which mention that functional programming can be more performant than other paradigms like the imperative approach eg. OO (in certain models of computation).
Can someone please explain some of the ways that purely functional programming can reduce this bottleneck? ie. are any of the following points found (in general) to be true?
Using immutable data structures means generally less data is moving across that bus - less writes?
Using immutable data structures means that data is possibly more likely to be hanging around in CPU cache - because less updates to existing state means less flushing of objects from cache?
Is it possible that using immutable data structures means that we may often never even read the data back from main memory because we may create the object during computation and have it in local cache and then during same time slice create a new immutable object off of it (if there is a need for an update) and we then never use original object ie. we are working a lot more with objects that are sitting in local cache.
Oh man, that’s a classic. John Backus’ 1977 ACM Turing Award lecture is all about that: “Can Programming Be Liberated from the von Neumann Style? A Functional Style and Its Algebra of Programs.” (The paper, “Lambda: The Ultimate Goto,” was presented at the same conference.)
I’m guessing that either you or whoever raised this question had that lecture in mind. What Backus called “the von Neumann bottleneck” was “a connecting tube that can transmit a single word between the CPU and the store (and send an address to the store).”
CPUs do still have a data bus, although in modern computers, it’s usually wide enough to hold a vector of words. Nor have we gotten away from the problem that we need to store and look up a lot of addresses, such as the links to daughter nodes of lists and trees.
But Backus was not just talking about physical architecture (emphasis added):
Not only is this tube a literal bottleneck for the data traffic of a problem, but, more importantly, it is an intellectual bottleneck that has kept us tied to word-at-a-time thinking instead of encouraging us to think in terms of the larger conceptual units of the task at hand. Thus programming is basically planning and detailing the enormous traffic of words through the von Neumann bottleneck, and much of that traffic concerns not significant data itself but where to find it.
In that sense, functional programming has been largely successful at getting people to write higher-level functions, such as maps and reductions, rather than “word-at-a-time thinking” such as the for loops of C. If you try to perform an operation on a lot of data in C, today, then just like in 1977, you need to write it as a sequential loop. Potentially, each iteration of the loop could do anything to any element of the array, or any other program state, or even muck around with the loop variable itself, and any pointer could potentially alias any of these variables. At the time, that was true of the DO loops of Backus’ first high-level language, Fortran, as well, except maybe the part about pointer aliasing. To get good performance today, you try to help the compiler figure out that, no, the loop doesn’t really need to run in the order you literally specified: this is an operation it can parallelize, like a reduction or a transformation of some other array or a pure function of the loop index alone.
But that’s no longer a good fit for the physical architecture of modern computers, which are all vectorized symmetric multiprocessors—like the Cray supercomputers of the late ’70s, but faster.
Indeed, the C++ Standard Template Library now has algorithms on containers that are totally independent of the implementation details or the internal representation of the data, and Backus’ own creation, Fortran, added FORALL and PURE in 1995.
When you look at today’s big data problems, you see that the tools we use to solve them resemble functional idioms a lot more than the imperative languages Backus designed in the ’50s and ’60s. You wouldn’t write a bunch of for loops to do machine learning in 2018; you’d define a model in something like Tensorflow and evaluate it. If you want to work with big data with a lot of processors at once, it’s extremely helpful to know that your operations are associative, and therefore can be grouped in any order and then combined, allowing for automatic parallelization and vectorization. Or that a data structure can be lock-free and wait-free because it is immutable. Or that a transformation on a vector is a map that can be implemented with SIMD instructions on another vector.
Examples
Last year, I wrote a couple short programs in several different languages to solve a problem that involved finding the coefficients that minimized a cubic polynomial. A brute-force approach in C11 looked, in relevant part, like this:
static variable_t ys[MOST_COEFFS];
// #pragma omp simd safelen(MOST_COEFFS)
for ( size_t j = 0; j < n; ++j )
ys[j] = ((a3s[j]*t + a2s[j])*t + a1s[j])*t + a0s[j];
variable_t result = ys[0];
// #pragma omp simd reduction(min:y)
for ( size_t j = 1; j < n; ++j ) {
const variable_t y = ys[j];
if (y < result)
result = y;
} // end for j
The corresponding section of the C++14 version looked like this:
const variable_t result =
(((a3s*t + a2s)*t + a1s)*t + a0s).min();
In this case, the coefficient vectors were std::valarray objects, a special type of object in the STL that have restrictions on how their components can be aliased, and whose member operations are limited, and a lot of the restrictions on what operations are safe to vectorize sound a lot like the restrictions on pure functions. The list of allowed reductions, like .min() at the end, is, not coincidentally, similar to the instances of Data.Semigroup. You’ll see a similar story these days if you look through <algorithm> in the STL.
Now, I’m not going to claim that C++ has become a functional language. As it happened, I made all the objects in the program immutable and automatically collected by RIIA, but that’s just because I’ve had a lot of exposure to functional programming and that’s how I like to code now. The language itself doesn’t impose such things as immutability, garbage collection or absence of side-effects. But when we look at what Backus in 1977 said was the real von Neumann bottleneck, “an intellectual bottleneck that has kept us tied to word-at-a-time thinking instead of encouraging us to think in terms of the larger conceptual units of the task at hand,” does that apply to the C++ version? The operations are linear algebra on coefficient vectors, not word-at-a-time. And the ideas C++ borrowed to do this—and the ideas behind expression templates even more so—are largely functional concepts. (Compare that snippet to how it would’ve looked in K&R C, and how Backus defined a functional program to compute inner product in section 5.2 of his Turing Award lecture in 1977.)
I also wrote a version in Haskell, but I don’t think it’s as good an example of escaping that kind of von Neumann bottleneck.
It’s absolutely possible to write functional code that meets all of Backus’ descriptions of the von Neumann bottleneck. Looking back on the code I wrote this week, I’ve done it myself. A fold or traversal that builds a list? They’re high-level abstractions, but they’re also defined as sequences of word-at-a-time operations, and half or more of the data passed through the bottleneck when you create and traverse a singly-linked list is the addresses of other data! They’re efficient ways to put data through the von Neumann bottleneck, and that’s basically why I did it: they’re great patterns for programming von Neumann machines.
If we’re interested in coding a different way, however, functional programming gives us tools to do so. (I’m not going to claim it’s the only thing that does.) Express a reduction as a foldMap, apply it to the right kind of vector, and the associativity of the monoidal operation lets you split up the problem into chunks of whatever size you want and combine the pieces later. Make an operation a map rather than a fold, on a data structure other than a singly-linked list, and it can be automatically parallelized or vectorized. Or transformed in other ways that produce the same result, since we’ve expressed the result at a higher level of abstraction, not a particular sequence of word-at-a-time operations.
My examples so far have been about parallel programming, but I’m sure quantum computing will shake up what programs look like a lot more fundamentally.
I was wondering, does the MatLab compiler automatically change several calls to a function on the same object to one call ?
i. e.
someVector=zeros(length(someOtherVector),1);
for i=1:length(someOtherVector)
...
end
"Optimized"
aSize=length(someOtherVector);
someVector=zeros(aSize,1);
for i=1:aSize
...
end
By-question: How is this optimization technique formally called ? I understand, for instance, the JVM does this kind of stuff.
The MATLAB JIT Compiler makes plenty of optimizations, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't do the optimization you're suggesting.
To see why, imagine that you'd written your own function called length which returned a random integer whatever its input, and put it on the path so that it shadowed the built-in length. Then your second version would not only not be an optimized version of the first, it would actually have different effects.
Indeed, if you really wanted to mess around, you could implement length so that it wrote a new file called length and put that ahead of itself on the path, so that it would have entirely different effects the next time around.
MATLAB is quite a flexible language, which has a lot of advantages, but that makes it less possible to perform the sort of static analysis on MATLAB code that these sort of JIT optimizations would require. Java is much easier to statically analyse, so the JVM can perform more optimizations.
I am using MATLAB gamultiobj optimization
as I have 6 to 12 objective functions; the gamultiobj function inefficiently handling the problem, always terminated because the number of generations exceeded, not because the changes of the objective functions become smaller
I looked at the gamultiobj options documentations, but it didn't help
http://www.mathworks.com/help/gads/examples/multiobjective-genetic-algorithm-options.html
1- how can I increase the capability of gamultiobj function to handle this number of objective functions?
2- are there a better way at all (using MATLAB)?
Well,
this is my update:
1- I increased the number of generations, the population size, and assigned proper initial population using the common ga options, it worked better (I didn't know that they are working with gamultiobj too, but I knew, it isn't stated anywhere in the documentation explicitly).
2- after running and inspecting the results I realized that gamultiobj can handle many objective functions efficiently providing that they are independent. As long as the objective functions are strongly dependent (which is the case of my problem, unfortunately) the gamultiobj solver's efficiency dramatically decreases.
thanks !
You should increase the number of generations, possibly play with the options such as crossover, mutation, the constraint bounds in which you're going to get the solution.
The bounds are to specified correctly. and the initial population is also pretty much needed to get it to the correct set of parameters that you want to optimize
I am working on reducing dimentionality of a set of (Boolean) vectors with both the number and dimentionality of vectors tending to be of the order of 10^5-10^6 using autoencoders. Hence even though speed is not of essence (it is supposed to be a pre-computation for a clustering algorithm) but obviously one would expect that the computations take a reasonable amount of time. Seeing how the library itself was written in c++ would it be a good idea to stick to it or to code in Java (Since the rest of the code is written in Java)? Or would it not matter at all?
That question is difficult to answer. It depends on:
How computationally demanding will be your code? If the hard part is done by the library and your code is only to generate the input and post-process the output, Java would be a valid choice. Compare it to Matlab: The language is very slow but the built-in algorithms are super-fast.
How skilled are you (or your team, or your future students) in Java and C++. Consider learning C++ takes a lot of time. If you have only a small scaled project, it could be easier to buy a bigger machine or wait two days instead of one, to get the results.
Have you legacy code in one of the languages you want to couple or maybe re-use?
Overall, I would advice you to set up a benchmark example in whatever language you like more. Then give it a try. If the speed is ok, stick to it. If you wait to long, think about alternatives (new hardware, parallel execution, different language).
I'm doing an AutoLisp project which uses long associative structures to do heavy geometrical processing - so I'm curious about the associative list intense use timing results.
How simple/complex is the implementation? It uses some data structure or a normal list of dotted pairs?
The are any extension for b-tree or something?
the turning point for SBCL on recent x86 hardware between alists and identity based hashtables, assuming even distribution of access, is around 30-40 elements.
In Common Lisp and Emacs Lisp association lists are linked lists, so they have linear search time. Assuming that AutoLisp is the same (and if it isn't, then their use of the term "Associative List" is misleading), you can assume that all operations will be linear in the length of the list. For example, an alist with 100 elements will, on average, need 50 accesses to find the thing that you are after.
Of course, most Scheme implementations (or maybe it's in the specs?) have hashtables, which use mostly the same API; but it's not transparent, when you ask for an alist, you get a list of pairs, if you want a hashtable, ask for it.
that said, it's important to remember that linear algorithms aren't slow; they're 'unscalable'. for a small number of elements, they'll outperform a more complex 'clever' algorithm. just how large 'n' has to be, depends a lot on the algorithm, and fast processors with big caches but slow RAM, keep pushing it. Also, heavy optimising compilers (like those available on some Lisp's) generate very tight linear code.
I have not worked with AutoLisp in about 10 years, but I never found any real performance issues with association list manipulation. And I wrote code that would do a fair amount of association list manipulation.
Working in VBA or ObjectARX might have some performance benefits, but you would probably need to run some comparison testing to see if it is really better.
There is no extension for b-tree that I know of but if you use Visual LISP you can use ActiveX objects and thus access most types of databases.