I think I understand why there is a danger in allowing closures in a language using dynamic scope. That is, it seems you will be able to close the variable OK, but when trying to read it you will only get the value at the top of global stack. This might be dangerous if other functions use same name in the interim.
Have I missed some other subtlety?
I realize I'm years late answering this, but I just ran across this question while doing a web search and I wanted to correct some misinformation that is posted here.
"Closure" just means a callable object that contains both code and an environment that provides bindings for free variables within that code. That environment is usually a lexical environment, but there is no technical reason why it can't be a dynamic environment.
The trick is to close the code over the environment and not the particular values. This is what Lisp 1.5 did, and also what MACLisp did for "downward funargs."
You can see how Lisp 1.5 did this by reading the Lisp 1.5 manual at http://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/LISP/book
Pay particular attention in Appendix B to how eval handles FUNCTION and how apply handles FUNARG.
You can get the basic flavor of programming using dynamic closures from http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DynamicClosure
You can get an in depth introduction to the implementation issues from ftp://publications.ai.mit.edu/ai-publications/pdf/AIM-199.pdf
Modern dynamically scoped languages generally use shallow binding, where the current value of each variable is kept in one global location, and function calls save old values away on the stack. One way of implementing dynamic closures with shallow binding is described at http://www.pipeline.com/~hbaker1/ShallowBinding.html
Yes, that's the basic problem. The term "closure" is short for "lexical closure", though, which by definition captures its lexical scope. I'd call the things in a dynamically scoped language something else, like LAMBDA. Lambdas are perfectly safe in a dynamically scoped language as long as you don't try to return them.
(For an interesting thought experiment, compare the problem of returning a dynamically scoped lambda in Emacs Lisp to the problem of returning a reference to a stack-allocated variable in C, and how both are impossible in Scheme.)
A long time ago, back when languages with dynamic scope were much less rare than today, this was known as the funargs problem. The problem you mention is the upward funargs problem.
Related
The main goal of defining enumerators is to assign a variable to some numbers and their equal strings as I understand.
We can define var a as an enum everywhere in the initializing section of our Program or Function Block like this:
a:(start,stop,operate);
tough I don't know why we can't see that in tabular view but there there is a big question that:
What is the benefit of defining enumerators as a DUT?
There are 3 main benefits for me:
You can use the same enum in multiples function blocks
You can use TO_STRING on enums declared as DUTs (After enabling it with {attribute 'to_string'} Infosys
You can use refactoring on names of each component, which is impossible with local enums
When defining an enum as a DUT it is available everywhere in your code (global scope).
This is helpful in many cases, but in general it is not good programming practice to have a lot of stuff available in the global scope.
Here is a bit elaboration on the topic.
In addition to the above, one benefit is that if you are using an enumeration for something like FB states, you will be able to see the descriptive status name when the program is running (READING, WRITING, WAITING, ERROR, etc.).
You can see it in the variable declarations section, in-line with your code, or in the watch window. You don’t have to remember what status number was defined in your state machine.
This benefit comes with local enumerations or DUT (global) enumerations.
In addition to other good points already made, there is another big advantage to enumerations : you can use the enumeration as the type of a variable, and when you do that, the compiler will (if {attribute 'strict'} is used in the enumeration declaration, which it probably should) refuse an assignment to that variable of a value that is not allowed by the enumeration.
In other words, you get rid of a whole class of failure modes where the variable ends up having an invalid value due to some coding mistake the compiler cannot catch.
It takes a trivial amount of time to create an enumeration, and it has benefits on many levels. I would say the real question is why not use them whenever a fixed list of meaningful values needs to be expressed.
I am working with a legacy scala codebase, and as is always the case modifying the code is quite difficult without touching different parts.
One of my new requirement in to make several decisions based on some input parameters. Problem is that these decisions are to be made at various points along the execution. So either I encapsulate all those parameters in a case class instance and pass it along. But it means I would have to modify multiple methods signatures, and I want to avoid this approach as much as possible.
Another approach can be to create a global object containing all those input parameters and accessible from different points in the execution. Is it a good approach in Scala?
No, using global mutable variables to pass “hidden” parameters is not a good idea, not in Scala and not in any other programming language. It makes the code hard to understand and modify, because a function's behaviour will now depend on which functions were invoked earlier. And it's extremely fragile, because you might forget setting one of those global parameters before invoking the function, which means that it will use whatever value was stored there before. This is the kind of thing that can appear to work for years, and then break when you modify a completely unrelated part of the program.
I can't stress this enough: do not use global mutable variables, period. The solution is to man up and change those method signatures. Depending on the details, dependency injection may or may not help in your particular case.
I've been doing Progress 4GL for 8 years though it's not my main responsibility. I do C++ and Java a lot more. When programming in other language it's suggested to have the declaration close to the usage. With 4GL however I see people place the declaration on top of the file. It's even in the coding standard.
I think placing them on top of them file would lead to 'vertical separation' problem. In most other language it's even suggested to do the assignment at the same line as the declaration.
The question is why it's suggested to do so in 4GL ? What's the benefit ? I know that it's possible to place the declaration anywhere in the file, given that it's declared before it is used.
I think the answer is to do with scoping, or the lack of it, within Progress 4GL.
If you are used to Java, say, and read a Progress 4GL program, that looks like
DO:
DEFINE VARIABLE x AS INTEGER INITIAL 4.
DISPLAY x.
END.
then you wouldn't expect to be able to use this value of x anywhere else in the program, and that any changes made in the block, wouldn't effect anything outside the block.
As I understand it, all progress variables declared within the body of a program are scoped to the whole program, unless they are declared are within an internal procedure or function, in which case they are scoped to the procedure or function.
(Incidentally any default buffers [i.e. undeclared] you use within an internal procedure/function are scoped to the whole program, not just the procedure or function, so you need to be very careful to explicity declare buffers in functions you intend ot use recursively).
I therefore think the convention of declaring variables at the beginning of a program is in order to reflect the fact that Progress will treat them has having been done so, regardless of where you put the declaration.
There is absolutely no benefit in scoping anything to the program as a whole when it could be scoped smaller.
Smaller scopes are easier to test, give less possibility of namespace conflict, and less opportunity for error.
Tightly scoped named buffers are especially useful when writing to the database because they eliminate the possibility of there ever being some other part of your code that uses the same buffer and causes a share-lock, i.e., this fails to compile:
do for b-customer transaction:
find b-customer where .... exclusive...
...
end.
...
find b-customer...
On the other hand, procedures and functions (and include files...) that share scope with the main body of code are a major source of bugs, because when you pick up your variable or whatever, you can never be entirely certain where it has been...
All of this is just basic Structured Programming, of course. It's true for every language and has been accepted since the 70's.
The "reason" that you usually see variables defined at the top is simple. Habit. That is just how things were done in the bad old days.
A lot of old code, or code written by old fossils, is written that way. No matter the language.
Some languages (COBOL springs to mind) even formalized it.
Is there any advantage to such an approach?
Not especially. I guess you could argue "they are all in one place and easy to find" but that isn't very compelling.
"Habit" is actually more compelling ;) If you are working with a team that expects a certain style or in an application where a particular style is prevalent then you should think twice before unilaterally throwing out a new way of doing things - the confusion could be a bigger problem than the advantages gained.
I’ve been working with Scala language for a few months and I’ve already created couple projects in Scala. I’ve found Scala REPL (at least its IntelliJ worksheet implementation) is quite convenient for quick development. I can write code, see what it does and it’s nice. But I do the procedure only for functions (not whole program). I can’t start my application and change it on spot. Or at least I don’t know how (so if you know you are welcome to give me piece of advice).
Several days ago my associate told me about Clojure REPL. He uses Emacs for development process and he can change code on spot and see results without restarting. For example, he starts the process and if he changes implementation of a function, his code will change his behavior without restart. I would like to have the same thing with Scala language.
P.S. I want to discuss neither which language is better nor does functional programming better than object-oriented one. I want to find a good solution. If Clojure is the better language for the task so let it be.
The short answer is that Clojure was designed to use a very simple, single pass compiler which reads and compiles a single s-expression or form at a time. For better or worse there is no global type information, no global type inference and no global analysis or optimization. Clojure uses clojure.lang.Var instances to create global bindings through a series of hashmaps from textual symbols to transactional values. def forms all create bindings at global scope in this global binding map. So where in Scala a "function" (method) will be resolved to an instance or static method on a given JVM class, in Clojure a "function" (def) is really just a reference to an entry in the table of var bindings. When a function is invoked, there isn't a static link to another class, instead the var is reference by symbolic name, then dereferenced to get an instance of a clojure.lang.IFn object which is then invoked.
This layer of indirection means that it is possible to re-evaluate only a single definition at a time, and that re-evaluation becomes globaly visible to all clients of the re-defined var.
In comparison, when a definition in Scala changes, scalac must reload the changed file, macroexpand, type infer, type check, and compile. Then due to the semantics of classloading on the JVM, scalac must also reload all classes which depend on methods in the class which changed. Also all values which are instances of the changed class become trash.
Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses. Obviously Clojure's approach is simpler to implement, however it pays an ongoing cost in terms of performance due to continual function lookup operations forget correctness concerns due to lack of static types and what have you. This is arguably suitable for contexts in which lots of change is happening in a short timeframe (interactive development) but is less suitable for context when code is mostly static (deployment, hence Oxcart). some work I did suggests that the slowdown on Clojure programs from lack of static method linking is on the order of 16-25%. This is not to call Clojure slow or Scala fast, they just have different priorities.
Scala chooses to do more work up front so that the compiled application will perform better which is arguably more suitable for application deployment when little or no reloading will take place, but proves a drag when you want to make lots of small changes.
Some material I have on hand about compiling Clojure code more or less cronological by publication order since Nicholas influenced my GSoC work a lot.
Clojure Compilation [Nicholas]
Clojure Compilation: Full Disclojure [Nicholas]
Why is Clojure bootstrapping so slow? [Nicholas]
Oxcart and Clojure [me]
Of Oxen, Carts and Ordering [me]
Which I suppose leaves me in the unhappy place of saying simply "I'm sorry, Scala wasn't designed for that the way Clojure was" with regards to code hot swapping.
As far as I understand, in Scala we can define a function with no parameters either by using empty parentheses after its name, or no parentheses at all, and these two definitions are not synonyms. What is the purpose of distinguishing these 2 syntaxes and when should I better use one instead of another?
It's mostly a question of convention. Methods with empty parameter lists are, by convention, evaluated for their side-effects. Methods without parameters are assumed to be side-effect free. That's the convention.
Scala Style Guide says to omit parentheses only when the method being called has no side-effects:
http://docs.scala-lang.org/style/method-invocation.html
Other answers are great, but I also think it's worth mentioning that no-param methods allow for nice access to a classes fields, like so:
person.name
Because of parameterless methods, you could easily write a method to intercept reads (or writes) to the 'name' field without breaking calling code, like so
def name = { log("Accessing name!"); _name }
This is called the Uniform Access Principal
I have another light to bring to the usefulness of the convention encouraging an empty parentheses block in the declaration of functions (and thus later in calls to them) with side effects.
It is with the debugger.
If one add a watch in a debugger, such as, say, process referring for the example to a boolean in the focused debug context, either as a variable view, or as a pure side-effect free function evaluation, it creates a nasty risk for your later troubleshooting.
Indeed, if the debugger keeps that watch as a try-to-evaluate thing whenever you change the context (change thread, move in the call stack, reach another breakpoint...), which I found to be at least the case with IntelliJ IDEA, or Visual Studio for other languages, then the side-effects of any other process function possibly found in any browsed scope would be triggered...
Just imagine the kind of puzzling troubleshooting this could lead to if you do not have that warning just in mind, because of some innocent regular naming. If the convention were enforced, with my example, the process boolean evaluation would never fall back to a process() function call in the debugger watches; it might just be allowed in your debugger to explicitly access the () function putting process() in the watches, but then it would be clear you are not directly accessing any attribute or local variables, and fallbacks to other process() functions in other browsed scopes, if maybe unlucky, would at the very least be very less surprising.