16
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2024
16 points (100.0% liked)
Programming
17314 readers
257 users here now
Welcome to the main community in programming.dev! Feel free to post anything relating to programming here!
Cross posting is strongly encouraged in the instance. If you feel your post or another person's post makes sense in another community cross post into it.
Hope you enjoy the instance!
Rules
Rules
- Follow the programming.dev instance rules
- Keep content related to programming in some way
- If you're posting long videos try to add in some form of tldr for those who don't want to watch videos
Wormhole
Follow the wormhole through a path of communities !webdev@programming.dev
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
This is a very common toy example we use in Haskell, though honestly this OOP version leaves a lot to be desired, comparatively
The issue is that it tries to shoehorn separation of data and functions on data into a paradigm that's fundamentally about fusing those two things together.
Here's the Haskell version. Note how much simpler it is because data and functions are separate:
Typescript can do something similar:
Both the OOP approach and Typescript itself struggle with additions to the algebra composed of different types, however. For example, imagine extending it to handle booleans as well, supporting equality operations. It's difficult to make that well-typed using the techniques discussed thus far. In Haskell, we can handle that by making
Expr
a GADT, or Generalized Algebraic Data Type. That article actually already provides the code for this, so you can look there if you're curious how it works.Yes, this pattern is covered in my post on algebraic data types (linked at the start of the object algebras post.) The problem you mention about adding new data variants is exactly what object algebras solves. With object algebras data and functions are only co-located at the smallest possible granularity, so the desired functions and the desired data types can be composed as needed.
Your post only showed adding functionality over the algebra, not new types on which the algebra operates (or "sorts", as they are otherwise known). In other words, you can't easily extend
Expr
to support Boolean logic in addition to addition itself. For a concrete example, how could you represent ternary operators like in the expression2 + 2 == 4 ? 1 : 2
, such that it's well typed and will never result in an exception? With GADTs, this is very simple to do:lemmy seems to have lost my response to this, so I'll type it again and hope that it doesn't show up twice
There's three separate issues here:
The ability to express multi-sorted algebras
The ability to extend algebras with new sorts
The ability to extend a single sort of an algebra with new variants
For point 1, object algebras do support this even though I didn't show it in the post:
For point 2, you are correct that the original Java formulation of object algebras does not support data sort extensibility. I haven't tried to see if TS's more powerful generics change this or not.
For point 3, consider what happens if you want to add a new variant to the data type. In this case, add a
Mult
variant for multiplication. With GADTs this is not possible without modifying or duplicating the existing evaluation code, but I can do it with object algebras:This is the point of object algebras. ADTs and GADTs can't do this out of the box; this is the essence of the expression problem and is why more advanced techniques like final tagless encodings and datatypes a la carte exist.