functional reactivity: eschewing the imperativepsznhn/g54pdc/lecturenotes/yampa.pdf · functional...

Post on 27-Jul-2018

222 Views

Category:

Documents

0 Downloads

Preview:

Click to see full reader

TRANSCRIPT

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative

An Overview of Functional ReactiveProgramming in the Context of Yampa

Henrik Nilsson

University of Nottingham, UK

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.1/48

Reactive programming (1)Reactive systems :

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.2/48

Reactive programming (1)Reactive systems :

• Input arrives incrementally while system isrunning.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.2/48

Reactive programming (1)Reactive systems :

• Input arrives incrementally while system isrunning.

• Output is generated in response to input in aninterleaved and timely fashion.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.2/48

Reactive programming (1)Reactive systems :

• Input arrives incrementally while system isrunning.

• Output is generated in response to input in aninterleaved and timely fashion.

Contrast transformational systems .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.2/48

Reactive programming (1)Reactive systems :

• Input arrives incrementally while system isrunning.

• Output is generated in response to input in aninterleaved and timely fashion.

Contrast transformational systems .

The notions of• time• time-varying values, or signals

are inherent and central to reactive systems.Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.2/48

Reactive Programming (2)

Reactive systems are• generally concurrent• often parallel• often distributed

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.3/48

Reactive Programming (2)

Reactive systems are• generally concurrent• often parallel• often distributed

Thus, besides timeliness, difficulties related todevelopment of concurrent, parallel, anddistributed programming are also inherent.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.3/48

The Synchronous Approach (1)

The “synchronous realisation” (France, 1980s):

If we heed the observation that time-varyingvalues are central to reactive programming and

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.4/48

The Synchronous Approach (1)

The “synchronous realisation” (France, 1980s):

If we heed the observation that time-varyingvalues are central to reactive programming and• express systems directly as

transformations of such entities

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.4/48

The Synchronous Approach (1)

The “synchronous realisation” (France, 1980s):

If we heed the observation that time-varyingvalues are central to reactive programming and• express systems directly as

transformations of such entities• adopt system-wide logical time,

abstracting away processing delays(hence synchronous )

. . .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.4/48

The Synchronous Approach (2)

. . . then:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.5/48

The Synchronous Approach (2)

. . . then:• systems can be described declaratively

at a very high level of abstraction

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.5/48

The Synchronous Approach (2)

. . . then:• systems can be described declaratively

at a very high level of abstraction• simple, deterministic semantics,

facilitates reasoning

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.5/48

The Synchronous Approach (2)

. . . then:• systems can be described declaratively

at a very high level of abstraction• simple, deterministic semantics,

facilitates reasoning• many problems related to imperative

idioms for concurrency andsynchronisation simply vanishes.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.5/48

The Synchronous Approach (2)

. . . then:• systems can be described declaratively

at a very high level of abstraction• simple, deterministic semantics,

facilitates reasoning• many problems related to imperative

idioms for concurrency andsynchronisation simply vanishes.

Contrast programming with values at isolatedpoints in time in a fundamentally temporallyagnostic setting.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.5/48

The Synchronous Approach (3)

The synchronous languages were invented inFrance in the 1980s. The first ones were:

• Esterel• Lustre• Signal

Have been very successful; e.g. lots of industrialapplications.

Many new languages and variations since then.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.6/48

Functional Reactive Programming

Functional Reactive Programming (FRP):• Paradigm for reactive, concurrent

programming in purely declarative (functional)setting.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.7/48

Functional Reactive Programming

Functional Reactive Programming (FRP):• Paradigm for reactive, concurrent

programming in purely declarative (functional)setting.

• Originated from Functional ReactiveAnimation (Fran) (Elliott & Hudak).

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.7/48

Functional Reactive Programming

Functional Reactive Programming (FRP):• Paradigm for reactive, concurrent

programming in purely declarative (functional)setting.

• Originated from Functional ReactiveAnimation (Fran) (Elliott & Hudak).

• Has evolved in a number of directions andinto different concrete implementations.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.7/48

Functional Reactive Programming

Functional Reactive Programming (FRP):• Paradigm for reactive, concurrent

programming in purely declarative (functional)setting.

• Originated from Functional ReactiveAnimation (Fran) (Elliott & Hudak).

• Has evolved in a number of directions andinto different concrete implementations.

• (Usually) continuous notion of time andadditional support for discrete events.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.7/48

FRP applicationsSome domains where FRP or FRP-like ideashave been used:

• Graphical Animation• Robotics• Vision• GUIs• Hybrid modeling• Video games• Sensor networks• Audio processing and generation• Financial, event-based systems

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.8/48

Example: Robotics (1)

[PPDP’02, with Izzet Pembeci and Greg Hager,Johns Hopkins University]

Hardware setup:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.9/48

Example: Robotics (2)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.10/48

Related approaches

FRP related to:• Synchronous languages, like Esterel, Lucid

Synchrone.• Modeling languages, like Simulink, Modelica.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.11/48

Related approaches

FRP related to:• Synchronous languages, like Esterel, Lucid

Synchrone.• Modeling languages, like Simulink, Modelica.

Distinguishing features of FRP:• First class reactive components.• Allows highly dynamic system structure.• Supports hybrid (mixed continuous and

discrete) systems.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.11/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale• Embedding in Haskell (a Haskell library).

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale• Embedding in Haskell (a Haskell library).• Arrows used as the basic structuring

framework.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale• Embedding in Haskell (a Haskell library).• Arrows used as the basic structuring

framework.• Notionally continuous time .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale• Embedding in Haskell (a Haskell library).• Arrows used as the basic structuring

framework.• Notionally continuous time .• Discrete-time signals modelled by

continuous-time signals and an option type,allowing for hybrid systems.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa

• An FRP system originating at Yale• Embedding in Haskell (a Haskell library).• Arrows used as the basic structuring

framework.• Notionally continuous time .• Discrete-time signals modelled by

continuous-time signals and an option type,allowing for hybrid systems.

• Advanced switching constructs allows forhighly dynamic system structure.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.12/48

Yampa?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

Y etA notherM ostlyP ointlessA cronym

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

Y etA notherM ostlyP ointlessA cronym

???

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

Y etA notherM ostlyP ointlessA cronym

???

No . . .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

Yampa is a river . . .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

. . . with long calmly flowing sections . . .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Yampa?

. . . and abrupt whitewater transitions in between.

A good metaphor for hybrid systems!Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.13/48

Signal functionsKey concept: functions on signals .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.14/48

Signal functionsKey concept: functions on signals .

Intuition:

Signal α ≈ Time→α

x :: Signal T1y :: Signal T2f :: Signal T1 →Signal T2

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.14/48

Signal functionsKey concept: functions on signals .

Intuition:

Signal α ≈ Time→α

x :: Signal T1y :: Signal T2f :: Signal T1 →Signal T2

Additionally: causality requirement.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.14/48

Signal functionsKey concept: functions on signals .

Intuition:

Signal α ≈ Time→α

x :: Signal T1y :: Signal T2f :: Signal T1 →Signal T2

Additionally: causality requirement.

Signal functions are first class entities in Yampa:SF α β ≈ Signal α →Signal β

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.14/48

Signal functions and state

Alternative view:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.15/48

Signal functions and state

Alternative view:

Signal functions can encapsulate state .

state(t) summarizes input history x(t′), t′ ∈ [0, t].

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.15/48

Signal functions and state

Alternative view:

Signal functions can encapsulate state .

state(t) summarizes input history x(t′), t′ ∈ [0, t].

Functions on signals are either:• Stateful : y(t) depends on x(t) and state(t)

• Stateless : y(t) depends only on x(t)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.15/48

Example: Video tracker

Video trackers are typically stateful signalfunctions:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.16/48

Building systems (1)

How to build systems? Think of a signal functionas a block . Blocks have inputs and outputs andcan be combined into larger blocks. For example,serial composition:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.17/48

Building systems (1)

How to build systems? Think of a signal functionas a block . Blocks have inputs and outputs andcan be combined into larger blocks. For example,serial composition:

A combinator can be defined that captures thisidea:

(>>>) :: SF a b -> SF b c -> SF a c

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.17/48

Building systems (2)

But systems can be complex:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.18/48

Building systems (2)

But systems can be complex:

How many and what combinators do we needto be able to describe arbitrary systems?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.18/48

Arrows

Yampa uses John Hughes’ arrow framework:• Abstract data type interface for function-like

types (or “blocks”, if you prefer).

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.19/48

Arrows

Yampa uses John Hughes’ arrow framework:• Abstract data type interface for function-like

types (or “blocks”, if you prefer).• Particularly suitable for types representing

process-like computations.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.19/48

Arrows

Yampa uses John Hughes’ arrow framework:• Abstract data type interface for function-like

types (or “blocks”, if you prefer).• Particularly suitable for types representing

process-like computations.• Provides a minimal set of “wiring”

combinators.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.19/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.• Three operators:

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.• Three operators:

- lifting :arr :: (b->c) -> a b c

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.• Three operators:

- lifting :arr :: (b->c) -> a b c

- composition :(>>>) :: a b c -> a c d -> a b d

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.• Three operators:

- lifting :arr :: (b->c) -> a b c

- composition :(>>>) :: a b c -> a c d -> a b d

- widening :first :: a b c -> a (b,d) (c,d)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (1)

• A type constructor a of arity two.• Three operators:

- lifting :arr :: (b->c) -> a b c

- composition :(>>>) :: a b c -> a c d -> a b d

- widening :first :: a b c -> a (b,d) (c,d)

• A set of algebraic laws that must hold.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.20/48

What is an arrow? (2)

These diagrams convey the general idea:

arr f f >>> g

first f

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.21/48

Some arrow laws

(f >>> g) >>> h = f >>> (g >>> h)

arr (f >>> g) = arr f >>> arr g

arr id >>> f = f

f = f >>> arr id

first (arr f) = arr (first f)

first (f >>> g) = first f >>> first g

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.22/48

Some arrow laws

(f >>> g) >>> h = f >>> (g >>> h)

arr (f >>> g) = arr f >>> arr g

arr id >>> f = f

f = f >>> arr id

first (arr f) = arr (first f)

first (f >>> g) = first f >>> first g

Being able to use simple algebraic laws likethese greatly facilitates reasoning aboutprograms.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.22/48

The loop combinator

Another important operator is loop : a fixed-pointoperator used to express recursive arrows orfeedback :

loop f

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.23/48

The loop combinator

Another important operator is loop : a fixed-pointoperator used to express recursive arrows orfeedback :

loop f

Remarkably, the four combinators arr , >>>,first , and loop suffice for expressing anyconceivable wiring!

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.23/48

Some more arrow combinators (1)

second :: Arrow a =>a b c -> a (d,b) (d,c)

( *** ) :: Arrow a =>a b c -> a d e -> a (b,d) (c,e)

(&&&) :: Arrow a =>a b c -> a b d -> a b (c,d)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.24/48

Some more arrow combinators (2)

As diagrams:

second ff *** g

f &&& gFunctional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.25/48

Example: A Simple NetworkA simple network:

a1, a2, a3 :: A Double Double

One way to express it using arrow combinators:circuit_v1 :: A Double Doublecircuit_v1 = (a1 &&& arr id)

>>> (a2 *** a3)>>> arr (uncurry (+))

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.26/48

The arrow do notation (1)Using the basic combinators directly can becumbersome. Ross Paterson’s do -notation forarrows provides a convenient alternative. Onlysyntactic sugar !

proc pat -> do [ rec ]pat1 <- sfexp1 -< exp1

pat2 <- sfexp2 -< exp2

. . .pat

n<- sfexp

n-< exp

n

returnA -< exp

Also: let pat = exp ≡ pat <- arr id -< expFunctional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.27/48

The arrow do notation (2)

Let us redo the example using this notation:

circuit_v4 :: A Double Doublecircuit_v4 = proc x -> do

y1 <- a1 -< xy2 <- a2 -< y1y3 <- a3 -< xreturnA -< y2 + y3

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.28/48

Yampa and Arrows

The Yampa signal function type is an arrow.

Signal function instances of the corecombinators:

• arr :: (a -> b) -> SF a b

• >>> :: SF a b -> SF b c -> SF a c

• first :: SF a b -> SF (a,c) (b,c)

• loop :: SF (a,c) (b,c) -> SF a b

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.29/48

Some further basic signal functions

• identity :: SF a aidentity = arr id

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.30/48

Some further basic signal functions

• identity :: SF a aidentity = arr id

• constant :: b -> SF a bconstant b = arr (const b)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.30/48

Some further basic signal functions

• identity :: SF a aidentity = arr id

• constant :: b -> SF a bconstant b = arr (const b)

• integral :: VectorSpace a s=>SF a a

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.30/48

Some further basic signal functions

• identity :: SF a aidentity = arr id

• constant :: b -> SF a bconstant b = arr (const b)

• integral :: VectorSpace a s=>SF a a

• time :: SF a Timetime = constant 1.0 >>> integral

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.30/48

Some further basic signal functions

• identity :: SF a aidentity = arr id

• constant :: b -> SF a bconstant b = arr (const b)

• integral :: VectorSpace a s=>SF a a

• time :: SF a Timetime = constant 1.0 >>> integral

• (^<<) :: (b->c) -> SF a b -> SF a cf (^<<) sf = sf >>> arr f

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.30/48

A bouncing ball

y = y0 +

∫v dt

v = v0 +

∫−9.81

On impact:

v = −v(t−)

(fully elastic collision)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.31/48

Modelling the bouncing ball: part 1

Free-falling ball:

type Pos = Double

type Vel = Double

fallingBall ::

Pos -> Vel -> SF () (Pos, Vel)

fallingBall y0 v0 = proc () -> do

v <- (v0 +) ˆ<< integral -< -9.81

y <- (y0 +) ˆ<< integral -< v

returnA -< (y, v)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.32/48

Events

Conceptually, discrete-time signals are onlydefined at discrete points in time, oftenassociated with the occurrence of some event .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.33/48

Events

Conceptually, discrete-time signals are onlydefined at discrete points in time, oftenassociated with the occurrence of some event .

Yampa models discrete-time signals by lifting therange of continuous-time signals:

data Event a = NoEvent | Event a

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.33/48

Events

Conceptually, discrete-time signals are onlydefined at discrete points in time, oftenassociated with the occurrence of some event .

Yampa models discrete-time signals by lifting therange of continuous-time signals:

data Event a = NoEvent | Event a

Discrete-time signal = Signal (Event α).

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.33/48

Events

Conceptually, discrete-time signals are onlydefined at discrete points in time, oftenassociated with the occurrence of some event .

Yampa models discrete-time signals by lifting therange of continuous-time signals:

data Event a = NoEvent | Event a

Discrete-time signal = Signal (Event α).

Associating information with an eventoccurrence:

tag :: Event a -> b -> Event bFunctional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.33/48

Modelling the bouncing ball: part 2

Detecting when the ball goes through the floor:

fallingBall’ ::

Pos -> Vel

-> SF () ((Pos,Vel), Event (Pos,Vel))

fallingBall’ y0 v0 = proc () -> do

yv@(y, _) <- fallingBall y0 v0 -< ()

hit <- edge -< y <= 0

returnA -< (yv, hit ‘tag‘ yv)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.34/48

Switching

Q: How and when do signal functions “start”?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.35/48

Switching

Q: How and when do signal functions “start”?

A: • Switchers “apply” a signal functions to itsinput signal at some point in time.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.35/48

Switching

Q: How and when do signal functions “start”?

A: • Switchers “apply” a signal functions to itsinput signal at some point in time.

• This creates a “running” signal functioninstance .

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.35/48

Switching

Q: How and when do signal functions “start”?

A: • Switchers “apply” a signal functions to itsinput signal at some point in time.

• This creates a “running” signal functioninstance .

• The new signal function instance oftenreplaces the previously running instance.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.35/48

Switching

Q: How and when do signal functions “start”?

A: • Switchers “apply” a signal functions to itsinput signal at some point in time.

• This creates a “running” signal functioninstance .

• The new signal function instance oftenreplaces the previously running instance.

Switchers thus allow systems with varyingstructure to be described.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.35/48

The basic switch

Idea:• Allows one signal function to be replaced by

another.• Switching takes place on the first occurrence

of the switching event source.

switch ::

SF a (b, Event c)

-> (c -> SF a b)

-> SF a b

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.36/48

The basic switch

Idea:• Allows one signal function to be replaced by

another.• Switching takes place on the first occurrence

of the switching event source.

switch :: Initial SF with event source

SF a (b, Event c)

-> (c -> SF a b)

-> SF a b

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.36/48

The basic switch

Idea:• Allows one signal function to be replaced by

another.• Switching takes place on the first occurrence

of the switching event source.

switch :: Function yielding SF to switch into

SF a (b, Event c)

-> (c -> SF a b)

-> SF a b

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.36/48

Modelling the bouncing ball: part 3

Making the ball bounce:

bouncingBall :: Pos -> SF () (Pos, Vel)

bouncingBall y0 = bbAux y0 0.0

where

bbAux y0 v0 =

switch (fallingBall’ y0 v0) $ \(y,v) ->

bbAux y (-v)

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.37/48

Simulation of bouncing ball

-5

-4

-3

-2

-1

0

1

2

3

4

5

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5

ydy/dt

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.38/48

Highly dynamic system structure?

Basic switch allows one signal function to bereplaced by another.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.39/48

Highly dynamic system structure?

Basic switch allows one signal function to bereplaced by another.

• What about more general structural changes?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.39/48

Highly dynamic system structure?

Basic switch allows one signal function to bereplaced by another.

• What about more general structural changes?

• What about state?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.39/48

Dynamic signal function collections

Idea:• Switch over collections of signal functions.• On event, “freeze” running signal functions

into collection of signal function continuations ,preserving encapsulated state .

• Modify collection as needed and switch back in.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.40/48

Example: Space Invaders

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.41/48

Overall game structure

gun

alien

bullet

alien

...

killOrSpawn

ObjInput ObjOutput

} [ObjectOutput]

dpSwitch

route

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.42/48

Describing the alien behavior (1)

type Object = SF ObjInput ObjOutput

alien :: RandomGen g =>

g -> Position2 -> Velocity -> Object

alien g p0 vyd = proc oi -> do

rec

-- Pick a desired horizontal position

rx <- noiseR (xMin, xMax) g -< ()

smpl <- occasionally g 5 () -< ()

xd <- hold (point2X p0) -< smpl ‘tag‘ rx

...

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.43/48

Describing the alien behavior (2)

...

-- Controller

let axd = 5 * (xd - point2X p)

- 3 * (vector2X v)

ayd = 20 * (vyd - (vector2Y v))

ad = vector2 axd ayd

h = vector2Theta ad

...

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.44/48

Describing the alien behavior (3)

...

-- Physics

let a = vector2Polar

(min alienAccMax

(vector2Rho ad))

h

vp <- iPre v0 -< v

ffi <- forceField -< (p, vp)

v <- (v0 ˆ+ˆ) ˆ<< impulseIntegral

-< (gravity ˆ+ˆ a, ffi)

p <- (p0 .+ˆ) ˆ<< integral -< v

...Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.45/48

Describing the alien behavior (4)

...

-- Shields

sl <- shield -< oiHit oi

die <- edge -< sl <= 0

returnA -< ObjOutput {

ooObsObjState = oosAlien p h v,

ooKillReq = die,

ooSpawnReq = noEvent

}

where

v0 = zeroVectorFunctional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.46/48

State in alien

Each of the following signal functions used inalien encapsulate state:

• noiseR

• occasionally

• hold

• iPre

• forceField

• impulseIntegral

• integral

• shield

• edge

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.47/48

Why not imperative, then?

If state is so important, why not stick toimperative/object-oriented programming wherewe have “state for free”?

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.48/48

Why not imperative, then?

If state is so important, why not stick toimperative/object-oriented programming wherewe have “state for free”?

• Advantages of declarative programmingretained:- High abstraction level.- Referential transparency, algebraic laws:

formal reasoning is simpler.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.48/48

Why not imperative, then?

If state is so important, why not stick toimperative/object-oriented programming wherewe have “state for free”?

• Advantages of declarative programmingretained:- High abstraction level.- Referential transparency, algebraic laws:

formal reasoning is simpler.• Synchronous approach avoids

“event-call-back soup”, meaning robust,easy-to-understand semantics.

Functional Reactivity:Eschewing the Imperative – p.48/48

top related