Greetings from 2024! An official pattern matching PEP has been accepted https://peps.python.org/pep-0636/ and is available in Python 3.10. Class patterns are tested using isinstance, with no inheritance structure necessary, making the pattern described in this post 100% forward compatible to real pattern matching.
One of the features I miss most in non-Haskell programming languages is algebraic data types (ADT). ADTs fulfill a similar role to objects in other languages, but with more restrictions: objects are an open universe, where clients can implement new subclasses that were not known at definition time; ADTs are a closed universe, where the definition of an ADT specifies precisely all the cases that are possible. We often think of restrictions of a bad thing, but in the case of ADTs, the restriction of being a closed universe makes programs easier to understand (a fixed set of cases to understand, as opposed to a potentially infinite set of cases) and allows for new modes of expression (pattern matching). ADTs make it really easy to accurately model your data structures; they encourage you to go for precise types that make illegal states unrepresentable. Still, it is generally not a good idea to try to manually reimplement your favorite Haskell language feature in every other programming language you use, and so for years I’ve suffered in Python under the impression that ADTs were a no go.
Read more...
For the longest time, I thought of implicit parameters and dynamic scoping were basically the same thing, since they both can be used to solve similar problems (e.g., the so called “configuration problem” where you need to plumb down some configuration deep into a nested body of function definitions without defining them all explicitly). But implicit parameters have a reputation of being something you shouldn’t use (use reflection instead), whereas dynamic scoping via the reader monad is a useful and well understood construct (except for the bit where you have to monadify everything). Why the difference?
Read more...
vmap is an interface popularized by JAX which offers you a vectorizing map. Semantically, a vmap is exactly equivalent to a map in Haskell; the key difference is that operations run under a vmap are vectorized. If you map a convolution and a matrix multiply, you will have one big loop which repeatedly calls convolution and matrix multiply for each entry in your batch. If you vmap a convolution and matrix multiply, you’ll call the batched versions of convolution and matrix multiply once. Unless you have a fuser, on most modern deep learning frameworks, calling the batched implementations of these operations will be much faster.
Read more...
Some notes collected from a close read of Conal Elliot’s Compiling to Categories and The Simple Essence of Automatic Differentiation.
A colleague of mine was trying to define a “tree structure” of tensors, with the hope of thereby generalizing the concept to also work with tensors that have “ragged dimensions.” Let’s take a look:
Suppose we have a (2, 3) matrix:
tensor([[1, 2, 3],
[4, 5, 6]])
One way to think about this is that we have a “tree” of some sort, where the root of the tree branches to two subnodes, and then each subnode branches to three nodes:
Read more...
tl;dr If you use a Foldable function like length or null, where instance selection is solely determined by the input argument, you should make your code more robust by introducing an explicit type application specifying which instance you want. This isn’t necessary for a function like fold, where the return type can cross-check if you’ve gotten it right or not. If you don’t provide this type application, GHC should give a warning suggesting you annotate it explicitly, in much the same way it suggests adding explicit type signatures to top-level functions.
Read more...
GHC is not just a compiler: it is also a library, which provides a variety of functionality that anyone interested in doing any sort of analysis on Haskell source code. Haddock, hint and ghc-mod are all packages which use the GHC API.
One of the challenges for any program that wants to use the GHC API is integration with Cabal (and, transitively, cabal-install and Stack). The most obvious problem that, when building against packages installed by Cabal, GHC needs to be passed appropriate flags telling it which package databases and actual packages should be used. At this point, people tend to adopt some hacky strategy to get these flags, and hope for the best. For commonly used packages, this strategy will get the job done, but for the rare package that needs something extra–preprocessing, extra GHC flags, building C sources–it is unlikely that it will be handled correctly.
Read more...
Those that espouse the value of backwards compatibility often claim that backwards compatibility is simply a matter of never removing things. But anyone who has published APIs that involve data structures know that the story is not so simple. I’d like to describe my thought process on a recent BC problem I’m grappling with on the Cabal file format. As usual, I’m always interested in any insights and comments you might have.
Read more...
An old article I occasionally see cited today is Repeat after me: “Cabal is not a Package Manager”. Many of the complaints don’t apply to cabal-install 1.24’s new Nix-style local builds. Let’s set the record straight.
Fact: cabal new-build doesn’t handle non-Haskell dependencies
OK, so this is one thing that hasn’t changed since Ivan’s article. Unlike Stack, cabal new-build will not handle downloading and installing GHC for you, and like Stack, it won’t download and install system libraries or compiler toolchains: you have to do that yourself. This is definitely a case where you should lean on your system package manager to bootstrap a working installation of Cabal and GHC.
Read more...
Why are macros in Haskell terrible, but macros in Racket great? There are certainly many small problems with GHC’s Template Haskell support, but I would say that there is one fundamental design point which Racket got right and Haskell got wrong: Template Haskell does not sufficiently distinguish between compile-time and run-time phases. Confusion between these two phases leads to strange claims like “Template Haskell doesn’t work for cross-compilation” and stranger features like -fexternal-interpreter (whereby the cross-compilation problem is “solved” by shipping the macro code to the target platform to be executed).
Read more...
cabal new-build, also known as “Nix-style local builds”, is a new command inspired by Nix that comes with cabal-install 1.24. Nix-style local builds combine the best of non-sandboxed and sandboxed Cabal:
- Like sandboxed Cabal today, we build sets of independent local packages deterministically and independent of any global state. new-build will never tell you that it can’t build your package because it would result in a “dangerous reinstall.” Given a particular state of the Hackage index, your build is completely reproducible. For example, you no longer need to compile packages with profiling ahead of time; just request profiling and new-build will rebuild all its dependencies with profiling automatically.
- Like non-sandboxed Cabal today, builds of external packages are cached globally, so that a package can be built once, and then reused anywhere else it is also used. No need to continually rebuild dependencies whenever you make a new sandbox: dependencies which can be shared, are shared.
Nix-style local builds work with all versions of GHC supported by cabal-install 1.24, which currently is GHC 7.0 and later. Additionally, cabal-install is on a different release cycle than GHC, so we plan to be pushing bugfixes and updates on a faster basis than GHC’s yearly release cycle.
Read more...