I have been programming with imperative languages for 15 years. Now I started learning Haskell, and functional programming (and I am very determined to learn it well). It seems to me that I can still use functional programming paradigm with an imperative language. How can I benefit more from a functional programming language (i.e.Haskell)? In other words, is having built-in language constructs for functional programming the only reason for using a functional programming language(I can use polymorpim, and generic programming in imperative languages, as well).

I'm sure that the regular posters will have a ream of intelligent, informed comment to make about this. Just for once, though, I think there's space for a comment by a functional-programming tyro, precisely because I'm closer to being in your shoes than, say, Philip Wadler is. Just don't assume I'm right (but no doubt the experts will let us know if I'm wrong. Have a mallet, guys). I've appended to this message the names of a few publications that I particularly like. Disclaimer: the only purely functional language that I know is Haskell (and a negligible smidgen of ML). Point One: functional languages are powerful. The phrase 'built-in language constructs for functional programming' doesn't begin to describe it. Most imperative programmers don't even imagine the degree of abstraction and generality these languages afford. Polymorphism and generic programming are, as you say, possible in imperative languages, even if they're not always explicitly supported by the language. Likewise garbage-collection and (sort-of) higher-order functions. But I say: throw in lazy evaluation, -real- higher-order functions, currying and referential transparency, and find out what generality and abstraction really mean. Point Two: functional languages are beautiful. This brings tangible benefits as well as aesthetic satisfaction: unless you're doing something really dirty, your Haskell program will usually be more concise, explicit and general than its (say) Java equivalent -- often much more so. Hence readability and maintainability. Moreover, I've found learning Haskell to be a small education in itself. It's a truism that a language is only worth learning if it changes the way you think about programming; and though I still mostly program in imperative languages, a functional flavour has crept into much of my work. Even my Perl now tends towards recursion and non-destructive assignment, and I think this makes me a better Perlster. Point Three: functional languages are robust; or, rather, they very strongly encourage robust programming. This (along with Haskell's delicious typing system) is mainly because they do not permit data to be updated: if you've referred to a datum in the past, you can guarantee that it will not differ the next time you look at it. (Yes, this -does- give C programmers the heebie-jeebies. No, programs can still do useful things.) Hence referential transparency: given the same arguments, a functional function will always return the same answer. To debug an imperative program, as my lecturer used to say, you have to understand the entire history of the computation; in a functional program, whatever's going on is guaranteed to be no more complex than the particular function you're in. Functional programs rarely need debugging; when they do need debugging, the difficulty of the job is of a lower order of complexity than debugging an imperative program. Try it and you'll see. But, of course, every powerful force has its Dark Side. Point Four: functional languages are difficult are learn. The experts tend to put this statement in incredulous quotes, but I assert that it is still true if one is trying to learn Haskell on one's own without a grounding in certain mathematical principles that underlie the language. I was taught the basics by a damn' good lecturer, but most of my functional education has been self-propelled -- and frustrating. I've read some very good books, but various important concepts continue to elude me even though I've spent a fair bit of time meddling around with Haskell. What, for instance, the hell are monads? Though I've read, and pondered, and though I use the Haskell I/O system without difficulty, I still don't really grok monads except to believe that they'd make a lot of things easier if I did understand them. Presumably I'm missing some fundamental insight, probably a simple one, but what? I don't know. Point Five: there's a dearth of libraries. Functional languages lack the embarrassing plethora of libraries that come with C++ or Java or Perl. For instance, there are simply are no mature, maintained Haskell libraries for GUI development or database access (as far as I know -- I haven't checked haskell.org in a while). So I end up using Perl::Tk and DBI.pm instead, because the job needs to be done today. (By the way, I understand that other functional languages (Clean, ML (and Erlang?)) are better equipped.) In summary, I love Haskell. I think it knocks the socks off any other language I've learned. When writing Perl, my frequent refrain is, "This'd be so much easier in Haskell!" and when programming in Haskell the cry is, "Yum!" But all too often I stray out of the domain of pure algorithm and have to cope with real-world grunginess. Then I growl in despair of ever getting to grips with Haskell, and all too often take refuge with one of the mainstream imperative languages (or, in extreme cases, Jack Daniels). Yowch, I've written a monograph. I'd better get back to my Perl before anyone notices me goofing off. // David -- David Hughes -+- office: +41 22 767 4047 UNIX Sysadmin, SERCo SA -+- mobile: +41 79 201 4732 Computing Centre, CERN -+- David.W.Hughes@cern.ch This message may not represent the views of my employer or of CERN. ================================================================== I recommend the following reading-matter: Simon Thompson, "Haskell: the craft of functional programming", Addison-Wesley Paul Hudak, "The Haskell School of Expression", Cambridge Univ. Press ... and anything linked from http://www.haskell.org/bookshelf, but especially: Philip Wadler, "Why no one uses functional languages" Philip Wadler, "What The Hell Are Monads?"