Fast Track to Haskell Course

I've spent the last two days on a Fast Track to Haskell course. It was a very interesting two days and I learnt a huge amount. The course was taught by Andres Löh from Well-Typed and hosted by the excellent people at Skillsmatter.

I went into the course having read the superb Learn You A Haskell book and having built a couple of experimental Haskell programs. From that starting point there was not a huge amount of content in the course that I was not aware of. However, it was great to have my learning verified and my understanding in many areas significantly improved. There were also a few things that changed my thinking on certain topics. All in all, a well spent two days.

The first day started with a whistle stop tour of the Haskell language and how to build things in it. There were plenty of excellent exercises to help cement learning and understanding. Then we looked in more detail at types and how to reason about software using types. The day concluded with looking at some more advanced type concepts including higher-order functions and type classes. The second day followed on with some more about types and then went on to look at how Haskell deals with I/O (which is very different to most other languages I have encountered). The rest of the day was then spent looking at common patterns that can be found in Haskell code and how these can be generalised into concepts such as Functors and Monads. Plenty more exercises followed.

I will now be going away and working on some private projects in Haskell, with the hope of attending the advanced course some time later this year. In the mean time, this blog post looks at some of the key things that I came away from the course with and how they relate back to the Scala and Java that I tend to do for my day job.

Focus on the Types, they are the API

When using an OO language, such as Java (or even Scala), we tend to think about classes, their interfaces and what behaviour they have, and then use this as a starting point to develop from. In Haskell you tend to think first about the types that are involved and then work forward from there. This is a very interesting approach as it makes it possible to think about a problem in a very general and quite abstract way without getting too bogged down in detail too quickly. The types become an API to your system (rather than the interfaces, methods and domain model in an OO solution).

My experience from the course was that this tends to lead to many more types and type aliases in Haskell than I would typically define in Java or Scala. However, this soon proves to be a huge advantage as it then makes it much easier to reason about what each function does/should do and makes its behaviour very clear via the type signature. I will certainly be looking at following this practice in any Haskell programs I write and also trying to introduce more types into my Scala code.

It's Pattern Matching and Recursion All The Way Down

In a language like Java there is nothing like pattern matching and recursion has to be used sparingly if you want to avoid blowing up the stack and writing poorly performing code. In Scala there is much more scope for both, although writing tail recursive functions is still very important to ensure that you get the best optimisations from the compiler. In Haskell, pattern matching and recursion are the bread and butter of the language. Almost every single function tends to be a pattern match on arguments and the language supports a naturally recursive style across the board. Given the lazy semantics of Haskell and the optimisation in the runtime for recursive algorithms this is the best approach for building programs in Haskell.

One area for improvement that I can see in my Scala code is to make more use of pattern matching, especially partial functions.

Thinking Curried Helps a Lot

In the Scala world we typically only curry functions when there are very obvious places to partially apply them. More often than not we just partially apply a function using the underscore for one of its parameters. This is needed to ensure compatibility with Java and the object-oriented model. However, in Haskell every function is completely curried. There are no multi-argument functions. Everything is a single argument function that returns either a result or another function.

Initially I found that this made sense in the model that I'm used to: partially applying functions. However, once it came to defining new types as actually being functions as well I found that this started to fry my mind slightly. The conclusion that I came to is that it's best to just think of everything from a curried mindset and throughout the course things gradually became clearer. This thinking is essential to understand things like the State monad (which I'm still not 100% confident about to be totally honest).

Parametric Polymorphism is Very Useful

One of my biggest take-aways from the course was how useful and important parametric polymorphism is. As an (overly) simple example, what does a function from Int -> Int do? It could return the same number, add something to it, multiply it, factor it, modulus it, ignore the input and return a constant - the possibilities are nearly endless. However, what does a function from a -> a do? Given no other constraints it can only do one thing - return itself (this is called the identity function - id in Haskell).

The ability to define functions in this polymorphic way makes it much easier to reason about what a function might do and also to restrict what a function actually can do. This second point greatly reduces the possibility of introducing unexpected defects or creating functions that have multiple interweaved concerns. As another example, consider the function: Ord a => [a] -> [a]. What does this do? Well, it could just return the same input list, but because it takes the Ord type class as a constraint it's quite likely to be some form of sorting or filtering by order function. As the writer of this function I'm restricted to working with lists and just using equality and ordering functionality so the possibility of doing anything unexpected is greatly reduced.

Parametric Polymorphism is possible in Scala, but not quite as powerful as there aren't type classes for may common concepts (e.g. equality, ordering, numbers, functor, applicative, monoid, monad etc.). Introducing Scalaz fixes this for quite a lot of cases, but that's not to the taste of many projects and mixed Scala/Java teams may find this a step too far. However, there's certainly more scope for using parametric polymorphism in everyday Scala code and this is something I'm going to work on ove the coming weeks (expect some more blog posts).

Don't Try to Over Generalise

Something that I've seen in every language is that once developers discover the power of generalising concepts they tend to go overboard with this. Remember the time when every piece of code was a combination of seven billion design patterns? The power of Haskell's type classes and parametric polymorphism makes it very easy to see patterns that may not actually hold. I can see that it would be very easy to waste a lot of time and effort trying to make a data type fit into various different type classes or trying to spot type class patterns in your code and pull them out into generic concepts.

As with any kind of design pattern, generalisation or similar, the best approach (in any language) is to just build what you need to solve a problem and then when it becomes apparent that it either fits an existing pattern or represents a general pattern then this change can be made as part of a refactoring process.

Try to Keep Pure and I/O Code Separate

Haskell's I/O model at first seems very different, unusual and restrictive. Once you get your head around it, it makes so much sense. Separating pure code from code that talks about doing an I/O action from code that actually does the I/O makes for software that is much more easy to reason about, test and reuse. Very powerful and something I'm looking forward to exploring more during my journey into Haskell.

In the Scala world, I'm not sure about the need to go to such lengths as using an I/O Monad or similar. However, I can really see the advantage of separating pure code from code that performs I/O. Having pure functions that transform data and then wiring them together with the I/O performing functions at a higher level seems a natural way to create software that is better structured and easier to test. I'll certainly be playing with some approaches in Scala to experiment with this concept further.

Functors, Applicatives, Monoids and Monads are Nothing Special

A final observation from the course is that many people learning and talking about functional programming get a bit obsessed with concepts like Functors, Applicatives, Monoids and Monads (especially Monads). What I learnt is that most of these are just simple patterns that can be represented by one or two basic functions and a few simple rules. Nothing more to them really. Certainly nothing to get all worked up about!

Yes, there's a great deal of skill involved in knowing when to use these patterns, when to make your own code follow a pattern and so on, but that's true of any programming language or design pattern. It's called experience.

Conclusion

If you are a Scala developer who is enjoying the functional programming aspects of the language I would certainly recommend taking a look at Haskell. I found that it clarified lots of things that I thought I understood from Scala but still had some doubts about. Haskell is, in my opinion, a more elegant language than Scala and once you start using it you realise just how many hoops the Scala team had to jump through to maintain compatibility with the JVM, Java code and object-oriented features. Over the two days I learnt a lot about Haskell, a lot about functional programming and a lot about how to get even more value from Scala.

Type Classes Make For Better Software Structure

When people usually talk about type classes in languages like Haskell and Scala they tend to be thinking of highly generic concepts like Ordering or Numeric operations. However, in some recent experiments with Haskell I have found that type classes can be very useful for more concrete things. When used appropriately they can lead to more loosely coupled software that is more flexible and easier to change.

I Just Met You, This Is Crazy, Here's My Number, Call Me Function?

As an example, let's consider a telephone number. Fairly simple right, it's a string of digits?

def sendMessage(toNumber: String, theMessage: Message)

Or perhaps we should create a type alias to give us some better info and scope for change:

type TelephoneNumber = String

def sendMessage(toNumber: TelephoneNumber, theMessage: Message)

But wait, I'm trying to build a library that sends messages to telephones and I need to know much more about a telephone number than this 'stringly' typed data is able to tell me. Things like:

• Is it in international format?
• What's the country prefix code?
• Is it a mobile number or a landline number?
• What is the area code?
• Is it some premium rate number?
• and so on…

The Naive Solution

It's clear that my 'stringly' typed representation is not sufficient for this task unless I want to encode a whole load of rules about the world's telephone numbering systems into my library (believe me when I say I don't!). So, a naive approach would be to introduce a new type that holds the information in a more usable format. Something like:

case class TelephoneNumber(countryCode: String, areaCode: String, number: String, isMobile: Boolean, isLandline: Boolean, …)

Unfortunately, this approach suffers from a whole host of problems, including:

• If I build my library implementation against this class then I can't easily change implementation details without breaking the API
• If I copy from an instance of this type into an internal representation then I have a lot of duplication and extra code to test
• If a client uses this type in their domain model they are tightly coupled to my library (and also a specific version of it)
• If a client copies from their own representation into an instance of this type there is more duplication and extra code to test

A More Object-Oriented Approach

So, how do we deal with this? Well what we need to do is separate the behaviour of a telephone number from its actual data representation. In an object-oriented language we would do this by introducing an interface (or in Scala, a trait):

trait TelephoneNumber {
  def countryCode: String
  def areaCode: String
  def number: String
  def isMobile: Boolean
  def isLandline: Boolean
  // and so on...
}

Internally in my library I write all my code against this interface without any care as to how the underlying telephone number data is structured. Client applications are free to implement telephone numbers in whatever way they wish, provided they also implement the interface that exposes the behaviour that my library needs. Yay, problem solved. Or is it? There's still one problem in this object-oriented approach: somewhere in the client code there must be a class that implements the TelephoneNumber interface. This is problematical in a number of ways:

• The class hierarchy of the client domain model is still quite tightly coupled to my library
• It might not be possible to modify an existing domain model to implement the TelephoneNumber interface (no access to source code, coupling restrictions etc.)
• If the client domain represents telephone numbers as Strings then this class can be extended to implement the interface

Both of the last two points would result in needing to implement the same sort of mapping layer to copy between representations that we already said lead to duplication and extra code to test.

How Haskell Does It

So, in a purely functional language that doesn't have the concept of interfaces how do we solve this problem. Enter the Type Class. These clever little beasties provide a mechanism whereby the required behaviour is captured as a series of function definitions (with possible implementations if available). For example:

class TelephoneNumber a where
    countryCode :: a -> String
    areaCode :: a -> String
    number :: a -> String
    isMobile :: a -> Bool
    isLandline :: a -> Bool
    ...

So far this looks pretty much like our interface definition above except that each method takes an instance of type 'a' as a parameter and returns the result. However, the clever bit comes in that we can implement the type class for any type in Haskell without needing to modify that type in any way. For example, we could easily implement it for Strings:

instance TelephoneNumber String where
    countryCode s = ...
    areaCode s = ...
    ...

Or our client code could define its own telephone number data type and an implementation of the type class along side it:

data UKTelephoneNumber = ...

instance TelephoneNumber UKTelephoneNumber where
    countryCode t = ...
    ...

The final change is then that we have our library function require that something implementing the type class is provided rather than some concrete data type:

sendMessage :: (TelephoneNumber t) => t -> Message -> IO ()
sendMessage to msg = do
    ...
    let cc = countryCode t   -- call function on the type class passing the instance we have
    ...

In this Haskell solution we have neatly decoupled the behaviour that our library requires of telephone numbers from the data type used to represent them. Also, any client code of our library does not need to couple its data structures/types directly to the library. They can define and modify them in any way they like. All they need to do is keep the instance of the type class up-to-date.

And Finally, A Better Scala Solution

As I have hopefully shown, the Haskell solution to the problem is both elegant and leads to cleaner, more loosely coupled code. So can we do something similar in Scala? Well, yes we can because Scala also supports type classes. They are a bit less elegant than Haskell, but they work just fine. First, we need to change the TelephoneNumber trait into a type class:

trait TelephoneNumber[T] {
  def countryCode(t: T): String
  def areaCode(t: T): String
  def number(t: T): String
  def isMobile(t: T): Boolean
  def isLandline(t: T): Boolean
  // and so on...
}

Note that all we have done is added a type parameter and modified all the functions to take an instance of that type. Notice that it's now almost identical in structure to the Haskell equivalent. Next we need an implementation of this type class. Let's define one for String:

object TelephoneNumber {

  object StringIsATelephoneNumber extends TelephoneNumber[String] {
    def countryCode(t: String) = ...
    ...
  }

  implicit def TelephoneNumber[String] = StringIsATelephoneNumber
}

I've put the implementation inside a TelephoneNumber object. If you are defining your own types, convention is usually that the type classes go in the companion object (e.g. for a case class UkTelephoneNumber the type class implementations would be in the UkTelephoneNumber companion object). This insures that the type class instances are always in scope when the type is used.

Finally, lets update our sendMessage function to work with type classes:

def sendMessage[T : TelephoneNumber](toNumber: T, theMessage: Message) = {
  ...
  val telNo = implicitly[TelephoneNumber[T]]
  val cc = telNo countryCode toNumber
  ...
}

Note the use of the context bound symbol ':' plus the implicitly function to define the need for and access to the correct instance of the type class.

So there we have it, an elegant Scala solution the overcome all of the coupling problems inherent with the object-oriented approach of implementing a required interface. When should you use this? My opinion is anywhere that two system components communicate, where that communication can be defined in terms of behavioural functions rather than actual data and where you want to minimise the coupling between them and the leaking of types from one component to another.

Life Without Objects

Over the last few years I have been learning and experimenting with a wider range of programming languages. In particular I have started using Scala as my primary development language, adopting a more and more functional style. I have also become very interested in Haskell (a pure functional language) and Clojure (a modern lisp dialect).

I have therefore been moving away from the object-oriented development principles that have made up the bulk of my 17 year career to date. More and more I am beginning to feel that objects have been a diversion away from building concise, well structured and reusable software.

As I pondered on this topic, I realised that this isn’t a sudden switch in my thinking. The benefits of objects have been gradually declining over a long period of time. The way I use objects today is very different to how I used them when they were new and shiny. In this post I explore this change in my thinking about object-oriented development.

The Promise of Objects

Back in the 1990s, objects were new and exciting. The promise of being able to create reusable classes built around common design patterns was seductive. The ability to then combine these classes into reusable and configurable business components seemed like the Mecca of software development. New languages like C++ and then, slightly later, Java held the promise of a new way of building great software.

Business Components Aren’t Reusable
It didn’t take us long to discover that the ability to create reusable business components was just a giant fallacy. Each business is significantly different from another, even in the same industry. Each similar project has very different business rules.

The only way to build reusable business components at this level is to make them hyper-configurable by adding such things as rules engines and embedded scripting languages. Hardly a component model and more like a bloatware model. This promise gone, people either buy into the big bloatware systems (suckers) or build their custom business objects on a project by project basis.

Patterns Don’t Build Well Structured Software
The next thing we learnt was that excessive reliance on design patterns doesn’t lead to the good software structure. Instead it leads to software that is overly complex, hard to understand and difficult to maintain. Some patterns even turned out to be anti-patterns (the singleton pattern makes software almost impossible to unit test, for example).

We soon learnt to use patterns judiciously. More often than not it’s just cleaner to code the software as you understand the model rather than try to abstract it into a more generalised pattern.

Frameworks for Class and Component Reuse Give Few Benefits
Another early promise of objects was rich, tightly coupled frameworks of classes which when used together would make building applications from reusable component a breeze by hiding all the technical complexity and implementation plumbing. Think EJB and similar. Experience soon showed that these just did not work. They were just too restrictive and cumbersome for what people were trying to achieve.

These heavy-weight frameworks soon died out to be replaced with more lightweight libraries and toolkit type approaches. Collections of more loosely coupled classes that you can pull together as needed are now the preferred way to build software. Take just what you need and nothing more.

Inheritance Creates Brittle Software
The ability to support interface and implementation inheritance was one of the key tenets of object oriented software development. We could spot common code and behaviour and push this down into a shared base class so that future abstractions could benefit from having this shared code available to build on.

Sadly, this just didn’t work out well. Each sub-class turns out to be subtly different from its peers, resulting in lots of overrides of base class behaviour or making the base classes even more generic. The net result was super-fragile software, where any small changes to a common base class would break most, if not all, of the sub-class implementations.

These days we don’t use inheritance much, and especially not for creating technical base classes. Its use is pretty much restricted to interface inheritance to indicate an object supports a certain behaviour or to occasional domain models where there is a true inheritance relationship. Other than that we tend to extract commonality in to separate ‘mixin’ type classes and compose them together through an aggregation approach.

Violation of Encapsulation
Another key feature of the object-oriented model was the ability to encapsulate state and then expose behaviours (via methods) that access and update this state. Unfortunately it turns out that there are a large number of cases, where we are actually interested in the vales of the state rather than the behaviour.

For example, asking an object to render itself as HTML turns out to be a pretty poor approach. Knowledge of HTML rendering gets spread across the code base and a small change in approach causes us to change many, many classes. Instead we tend to pass the object to a dedicated HTML rendering/template component, which pulls the data values from the object.

Anti-patterns have even emerged around this to allow us to have light-weight objects that just encapsulate state without behaviour (Java Beans, Data Transfer Objects and so on). If we are doing this, then why not just work directly with first-class structured data as opposed to objects?

Mutable State Causes Pain

Another perceived benefit of encapsulation was the ability to mutate the state of an object instance without impacting on the clients that use that object. However, anyone who has built a significant sized object-oriented system can tell you stories of trawling through many files of code to find the location that mutated the state of an object to an unexpected value that happened to make your software blow up in a completely different place (usually where you output or store the state of that object).

More and more we now favour immutable state and stateless services so that these problems do not occur. There’s also the additional benefit that immutable state is a much better model for building highly concurrent systems and for getting the most out of modern multi-core hardware. It’s also far easier and less error prone than trying to work with threads, locks and concurrency safe data structures.

Behavioural Interfaces Cause Code Complexity and Bloat
One of the things we do frequently in object-oriented languages is create small marker interfaces that have just a single method. Any class wanting to support this behaviour extends the interface and implements the method. We can also declare anonymous implementations for ad-hoc use.

However, we have found that neither of these approaches are particularly good. Implementing the marker interfaces often pollutes classes with implementations that are not their direct concern (thus violating the single responsibility principle). Anonymous classes are just unnecessary bolierplate that makes our code more difficult to understand and maintain.

Life Without Objects

So, is it possible to go back on 17 years of experience and contemplate a life without objects? I’m not sure that I’m 100% there just yet, but using a multi-paradigm language like Scala is allowing me to overcome many of the limitations of the object-oriented approach.

For example, Scala’s support for mixin traits makes it almost unnecessary to ever use implementation inheritance. It’s rich collections framework plus the ability to use case classes to create data structure like concepts obviates working around encapsulation issues. A recommendation to use immutable data and collections makes code easier to debug and reason about. The ability to use functions as general abstractions and type classes to extend behaviour while maintaining single responsibilities makes it much easier to build well structured, reusable software.

In fact, what I find I am doing more and more is using simple objects in the form of case classes to represent data structures, with a few behavioural methods to simplify working with this data. Then I’m just using mixin traits as a modular approach for grouping related functions together. Then I’m combining these together to form components in which I compose together various functions that transform data from one for into another.

Perhaps I’m further away from the pure object-oriented approach than I’d thought. I’m certainly building smaller, cleaner and better structured software than I ever was before.

Is Scala Like EJB2?

In this post and then in this followup, Stephen Colebourne (@jodastephen) states his criticisms of the Scala language and how it feels to him similar to the same feeling of when he was working with EJB2. A colleague of mine also tweeted the following:

"This is why I will never use Scala: def ++ [B >: A, That] (that: TraversableOnce[B])(implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[List[A], B, That]) : That"

Here's my thoughts and experience with the above.

I started out as a C and C++ developer, but joined the Java set right at the very beginning. I've been fortunate enough to have been working in Java since 1998. Or unfortunate, if you include the early days of the Servlet API & JSP, EJB1 and then EJB2! About 2007 I really started to feel the need for a different language, one that would allow me to express my ideas more concisely and without writing so much boilerplate code. I looked at Groovy, but found it too easy to keep dropping back and writing Java. I then learned Ruby. This taught me how expressive a good language can be and how powerful closures can be. I dabbled with a few more languages before finally finding Scala at the beginning of 2009. These days I mostly code a mix of Scala, Java and Groovy. Next challenge is Clojure.

Changing Mindset

Now, I'm an engineer at heart and my typical approach is to not only understand how to use something but also (and usually at the same time) understand how and why it works. This approach always served me well when learning languages like Java and Ruby. These languages have a fairly small surface area and a relatively simple type system. It's easy to read up on them, understand how to use them and understand exactly how they work. It's easy to look at the standard and third-party libraries and see how these work as well. For me, Scala was different and involved me making a fundamental shift in mindset about how I learned the language.

When I started out I approached Scala in the same way I did other languages: I read a book and tried to build some test applications while at the same time delving into the library and language to see how they worked. This was daunting! I can fully appreciate Stephen's position that it feels a bit like EJB2. Let's put that in context. EJB2 was a horrid mess of unnecessary complexity and complication. It aimed to simplify building enterprise apps involving persistent entities and business services, but it just added way more complexity and mind effort than it saved.

Now, back to Scala. It's a big language with a very extensive and powerful type system. If you attack trying to understand it as a whole I can see how it could be mistaken as another EJB2: there seems to be loads of complexity, a lot of which you can't see the reason for and a lot of stuff just requires so much mind effort to understand. Much of it initially seems unecessary.

It was after my initial failure to understand how the Scala language and libraries actually were built and worked that I took a step back and reconsidered my learning style. I could already see some value to the language and I wanted to explore more, but how? I then made a fundamental change in my approach. I decided that it was okay for me to start using the language without necessarily understanding exactly how all the details worked. As I used the language more I would gradually try to understand the how and why, one small step at a time.

I started learning to write Scala code. When I wanted to achieve something I researched how to do it until I was familiar with the use of a particular language feature or method. If there was some syntax, implementation detail or concept that I didn't get at that point I just noted it down as something to come back to. Now after a year or so writing Scala I look back at what I didn't initially understand and it mostly makes sense. I still occasionally encounter things that don't make total sense initially, so I just learn enough to use them and then come back later to learn the why or how. It's a system that seems to work incredibly well.

When you attack looking at and learning Scala in this more gradual way, first understanding how to use it then gradually, and incrementally, delving more deeply into the type system, you begin to realised that it's not so bad. Yes, there is complexity there, but it's not the unnecessary complexity of EJB2, it's moderate complexity that helps you be expressive, write safe code and get things done. As my knowledge of Scala has grown I've yet to find any features that I haven't been able to see the value of. It's a very well thought out language, even if it doesn't quite seems so at first.

Switching from a mindset where I have to have a full understanding or how something works before I use it to one where I'm comfortable with how to use it even if I don't know why it works was a very disconcerting change in my thinking. I'm not going to say it was an easy change to make, because it wasn't. However the effort was worth it for me because it got me using a language that I now find to be many more times more productive than Java. I think I also understand the language more deeply because I have put it to use and then come back later to understand more deeply exactly how and why it worked. I would never have got to this depth of understanding with my approach to learning other languages.

An Example

Consider the method:

  def ++ [B >: A, That] (that: TraversableOnce[B])
                        (implicit bf: CanBuildFrom[List[A], B, That]) : That

There's a lot of implementation detail in there. However, in order to use this method all I really need to understand is that it allows me to concatenate two immutable collections, returning a third immutable collection containing the elements of the other two. That's why the Scala api docs also include a use case signature for this method:

  def ++ [B](that: GenTraversableOnce[B]): List[B]

From this I understand that on a List I can concatenate anything that is GenTraversibleOnce (Scala's equivalent of a Java Iterable) and that I will get a new list returned. Initially I need understand nothing more in order to use this method. I can go away and write some pretty decent Scala code.

Some time later I learn that the >: symbol means 'same or super type of' and understand this concept. I can then refine my understanding of the method so that I now know that the collection that I want to concatenate must have elements that are the same (or a supertype) as the collection I am concatenating onto.

As I later progress and learn type classes I can see that CanBuildFrom is a type class that has a default implementation for concatenating lists. I can then take this further and create my own CanBuildFrom implementations to vary the behaviour and allow different types to be returned.

I'm first learning how to use the code, then gradually refining my understanding as my knowledge of the language grows. Trying to start out by learning exactly what the first signature meant would have been futile and frustrating.

Conclusion

If you start using Scala and you take the approach of trying to see it all, understand it all and know how and why it all works then it's a scary starting place. The size and complexity of the language (particularly its type system) can seem daunting. You could easily be confused in feeling it similar to EJB2, where reams of needless complexity just made it plain unusable.

However, by switching mindset, learning to use the language and then growing understanding of how it works over time it becomes much more manageable. As you do this you gradually realise that the perceived initial complexity is not as bad as it first seemed and that it all has great value. That initial hurdle from wanting to understand it all to being happy to understand just enough is very hard to get over, but if you do then a very powerful, concise and productive language awaits you.

Type Classes and Bounds in Scala

I've been doing some initial experiments with the Scalaz library (https://github.com/scalaz/). This is a great extension to the Scala standard library that adds a wide range of functional programming concepts to the language. Many of its features are based around the concept of Type Classes.

The type class concept originally comes from Haskell, and provides a way to define that a particular type supports a certain behavioural concept without the type having to explicitly know about it. For example, a type class may define a generic 'Ordered' contract and implementations can be defined for different types separate from the definition of those types. Any type that has an implementation of the 'Ordered' type class can then be used in any functions that work with ordering.

The Scala language provides a way to support type classes via its implicit mechanism. In order to get my head around this fully I created some examples to experiment with how this works. Now I fully grasp the mechanisms, the Scalaz library makes much more sense. I therefore thought I'd share my experiment in case it proves useful to anyone and as an aide-mémoire to myself for the future.

In addition, my examples also make use of the different type bounds mechanisms provided by Scala, so I will demonstrate these in my examples as well.

The full source code can be found in the following gist: https://gist.github.com/1247752.

Without Type Classes

In the first example, I built a simple solution that doesn't make any use of the type class concept. This solution is much like you would implement in Java, with an interface defining the behaviour and classes that implement this interface:

trait Publishable {  
  def asWebMarkup: String
}

case class BlogPost(title: String, text: String) extends Publishable {
  def asWebMarkup =
    """|
%s
       |
%s
""".stripMargin format(title, text)
}

Here we have a trait Publishable that indicates that something can represent itself as a web markup string. Then we have a case class that implements the trait and provides the method to return the markup. Next, we declare a class that can do the publishing:

class WebPublisher[T <: Publishable] {
  def publish(p: T) = println(p.asWebMarkup)
}

Note that we have defined this as a templates class and that we have used the <: bounds notation to require that our type T is only valid if it extends the Publishable trait. All we need to do now is use it:

val post = new BlogPost("Test", "This is a test post")
val web = new WebPublisher[BlogPost]()
web publish(post)

Ok, so that works fine. However, what happens when we either can't or don't want BlogPost to implement the Publishable trait? There can be many reasons for this: perhaps we don't have the BlogPost domain object source; perhaps the object is already quite complex and we don't want to pollute it with publishing knowledge; perhaps it's shared by multiple teams or projects and only ours needs publishing knowledge. So, what do we do?

Without type classes there are some options: we might extends the domain class to implement the trait; we might create a wrapper class or we might create a helper utility. However, all of these result in a level of indirection and complication in our code. Let me explain...

If we internalise the knowledge of the wrapper/helper/sub-class in our publishing code we end up with some horrific type matching:

class WebPublisher {
  def publish(p: AnyRef) = p match {
    case blogPost: BlogPost => BlogPostPublishHelper.publish(blogPost)
    case _ => …
  }
}

However, if we externalise the knowledge of publishing then our client code has to do the conversion:

class WebPublisher {
  def publish(p: Publishable) = ...
}

web publish(new PublishableBlogPostWrapper(blogPost))

Clearly, both solutions lead to fragile boilerplate code that pollutes our main application logic. Type classes provide a mechanism for isolating and reducing this boilerplate so that it is largely invisible to both sides of the contract.

Type Classes with Implicit Views

Fortunately, Scala provides a mechanism whereby we can declare an implicit conversion between our BlogPost and a Publishable version of our instance. So, let's start with the simple stuff:

trait Publishable {
  def asWebMarkup: String
}

case class BlogPost(title: String, text: String) 

So, we now have a blog post that doesn't implement the Publishable trait. Let's now define the conversion that can implicitly turn our blog post into something that supports publishing (we would typically add this into our publishing code rather than the domain object in order to isolate all knowledge of Publishable to just the area that needs it):

implicit def BlogPostToPublishable(blogPost: BlogPost) = new Publishable {
  def asWebMarkup =
    """|
%s
       |
%s
""".stripMargin format(blogPost title, blogPost text)
}

Our conversion just creates a new Publishable instance that wraps our blog post and implements the required methods. But, how do we make use of this? We have to change our web publisher very slightly:

class WebPublisher[T <% Publishable] {  
  def publish(p: T) = println(p.asWebMarkup)
}

All we have in fact changed is the <: bounds to a <% bounds. This new one is called a view bounds and defines that we can instantiate a WebPublisher with type T only if there is a view (in this case as implicit conversion) in scope from T to Publishable.

Our code to call this remains the same:

val post = new BlogPost("Test", "This is a test post")
val web = new WebPublisher[BlogPost]()
web publish(post)

Fantastic, our publish code gets objects that it knows are publishable, while our client code can just pass domain objects. We have all the boilerplate for conversion separated out from the main code.

However, while this all seems good, this approach does have its downsides. As you can see we are using the wrapper approach: creating a new instance of a Publishable class that wraps the original object. In a high volume system, the additional object allocations of new Publishable wrapper instances on each call to the publish method may have some less than ideal memory and garbage collection impacts.

The other problem with this approach is that is reduces our ability to compose methods in interesting ways. The reason for this is that once the publishing code has actually invoked the implicit conversion it now has the Publishable wrapper rather than the original object. If it passes this Publishable to other methods or classes than these are not aware of the original wrapped type or instance.

We can overcome this problem by modifying the Publishable trait to have a generic parameter type and support a get method to extract the wrapped value - but this then should really be called PublishableWrapper and some of the simplicity starts to break down.

I think the root of the problem here is that type classes are a very functional concept and implicit views tries to coerce these into a hybrid object/functional world. Fortunately, as of Scala 2.8 there is an additional way to implement the type class approach that leads to a more functional style of coding...

Type Classes with Implicit Contexts

An alternative to implicitly converting one class to a wrapper version of that class that adds additional behaviour is to follow more of a helper like approach. In this model we provide an implicit evidence parameter that implements the type class specific behaviour. This is a much more functional approach in that we don't alter the type we are working on. So, on with the code...

trait Publishable[T] {     
  def asWebMarkup(p: T): String
}

case class BlogPost(title: String, text: String)

This is our new Publishable trait and BlogPost class. Note that our Publishable is no longer intended to be implemented or used as a wrapper. Instead, it is now a contract definition of functional behaviour that takes a parameter of type T and transforms it into a String. A much cleaner abstraction. In fact, we can even create a single object instance that implements this behaviour for blog posts:

object BlogPostPublisher extends Publishable[BlogPost] {     
  def asWebMarkup(p: BlogPost) =
     """|
%s
        |
%s
""".stripMargin format(p title, p text)
}

We are also going to need our implicit. This time however, rather than being a conversion it becomes an evidence that we have something that implements Publishable for the type BlogPost:

implicit def Publishable[BlogPost] = BlogPostPublisher 

We also need to update our WebPublisher a bit:

class WebPublisher[T: Publishable] {  
  def publish(p: T) = println(implicitly[Publishable[T]] asWebMarkup(p))
}

There are two interesting things about this class. First, the bounds has now switched from view (<%) to context (:). The context bounds effectively modifies the class declaration to be:

class WebPublisher[T](implicit evidence$1: Publishable[T]) {  ...
}

The second change is the use of implicitly[Publishable[T]] which is a convenience for getting the implicit evidence of the correct type so that you can call methods on it.

Our code to call this remains exactly the same:

val post = new BlogPost("Test", "This is a test post")
val web = new WebPublisher[BlogPost]()
web publish(post)

One advantage that should be immediately obvious is that we are no longer creating new instances for each implicit use. Instead, we are using the implicit evident parameter (which is in this case an object) and passing our instance to it. This is more efficient in terms of allocations.

Also, we explicitly show where we make use of the implicit evidence, which is clearer. This also means that we are never creating a new wrapped type of T that we pass on to other code. We always pass on instances of type T that have implicit evidence parameters that allow T to behave as a particular type class instance.

Conclusion

We have looked at two different approaches to solving the problem of adding behaviour to an existing class without requiring it to explicitly implement a particular contract or extend a specific base class. Both of these make use of Scala implicits and type classes.

Implicit conversions with view bounds provides an approach where a type T can be converted into the type required by the type class. This works, but there are issues associated with the wrapping or transformation aspects of the conversion.

Implicit evidence parameters within context bounds overcome these problems and provide a far more functional approach to solving the same problem.