2. Getting things done
It’s great to dwell so much on purity, but we’d like to maybe use
Haskell for practical programming some time.
This leaves us concerned with talking to the outside world.
3. Word count
import System . E n v i r o n m e n t ( getArgs )
import C o n t r o l . Monad ( f o r M )
countWords p a t h = do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e p a t h
l e t numWords = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h )
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
mapM countWords a r g s
4. New notation!
There was a lot to digest there. Let’s run through it all, from top
to bottom.
import System . E n v i r o n m e n t ( getArgs )
“Import only the thing named getArgs from
System.Environment.”
Without an explicit (comma separated) list of names to import,
everything that a module exports is imported into this one.
5. The do block
Notice that this function’s body starts with the keyword do:
countWords p a t h = do
...
That keyword introduces a series of actions. Each action is
somewhat similar to a statement in C or Python.
6. Executing an action and using its result
The first line of our function’s body:
countWords p a t h = do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e p a t h
This performs the action “readFile path”, and assigns the result
to the name “content”.
The special notation “<−” makes it clear that we are executing an
action, i.e. not applying a pure function.
7. Applying a pure function
We can use the let keyword inside a do block, and it applies a
pure function, but the code that follows does not need to start
with an in keyword.
l e t numWords = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h )
With both let and <−, the result is immutable as usual, and stays
in scope until the end of the do block.
8. Executing an action
This line executes an action, and ignores its return value:
putStrLn ( show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h )
9. Compare and contrast
Wonder how different imperative programming in Haskell is from
other languages?
def c o u n t w o r d s ( p a t h ) :
c o n t e n t = open ( p a t h ) . r e a d ( )
num words = l e n ( c o n t e n t . s p l i t ( ) )
p r i n t r e p r ( num words ) + ” ” + p a t h
countWords p a t h = do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e p a t h
l e t numWords = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h )
10. A few handy rules
When you want to introduce a new name inside a do block:
Use name <− action to perform an action and keep its result.
Use let name = expression to evaluate a pure expression, and
omit the in.
11. More adventures with ghci
If we load our source file into ghci, we get an interesting type
signature:
*Main> :type countWords
countWords :: FilePath -> IO ()
See the result type of IO ()? That means “this is an action that
performs I/O, and which returns nothing useful when it’s done.”
12. Main
In Haskell, the entry point to an executable is named main. You
are shocked by this, I am sure.
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
mapM countWords a r g s
Instead of main being passed its command line arguments as in C,
it uses the getArgs action to retrieve them.
13. What’s this mapM business?
The map function can only call pure functions, so it has an
equivalent named mapM that maps an impure action over a list of
arguments and returns the list of results.
The mapM function has a cousin, mapM , that throws away the
result of each action it performs.
In other words, this is one way to perform a loop over a list in
Haskell.
“mapM countWords args” means “apply countWords to every
element of args in turn, and throw away each result.”
14. Compare and contrast II, electric boogaloo
These don’t look as similar as their predecessors:
def main ( ) :
f o r name i n s y s . a r g v [ 1 : ] :
c o u n t w o r d s ( name )
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
mapM countWords a r g s
I wonder if we could change that.
15. Idiomatic word count in Python
If we were writing “real” Python code, it would look more like this:
def main ( ) :
for path in s y s . argv [ 1 : ] :
c = open ( p a t h ) . r e a d ( )
p r i n t l e n ( c . s p l i t ( ) ) , path
16. Meet forM
In the Control .Monad module, there are two functions named
forM and forM . They are nothing more than mapM and mapM
with their arguments flipped.
In other words, these are identical:
mapM countWords a r g s
f o r M a r g s countWords
That seems a bit gratuitous. Why should we care?
17. Function application as an operator
In our last lecture, we were introduced to function composition:
f . g = x −> f ( g x )
We can also write a function to apply a function:
f $ x = f x
This operator has a very low precedence, so we can use it to get
rid of parentheses. Sometimes this makes code easier to read:
putStrLn ( show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h )
putStrLn $ show numWords ++ ” ” ++ p a t h
18. Idiomatic word counting in Haskell
See what’s different about this word counting?
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
f o r M a r g s $ a r g −> do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g )
Doesn’t that use of forM look remarkably like a for loop in some
other language? That’s because it is one.
19. The reason for the $
Notice that the body of the forM loop is an anonymous function
of one argument.
We put the $ in there so that we wouldn’t have to either wrap the
entire function body in parentheses, or split it out and give it a
name.
20. The good
Here’s our original code, using the $ operator:
f o r M a r g s $ a r g −> do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g )
21. The bad
If we omit the $, we could use parentheses:
f o r M a r g s ( a r g −> do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g ) )
22. And the ugly
Or we could give our loop body a name:
l e t body a r g = do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g ) )
f o r M a r g s body
Giving such a trivial single-use function a name seems gratuitous.
Nevertheless, it should be clear that all three pieces of code are
identical in their operation.
23. Trying it out
Let’s assume we’ve saved our source file as WC.hs, and give it a try:
$ ghc --make WC
[1 of 1] Compiling Main ( WC.hs, WC.o )
Linking WC ...
$ du -h ascii.txt
58M ascii.txt
$ time ./WC ascii.txt
9873630 ascii.txt
real 0m8.043s
24. Comparison shopping
How does the performance of our WC program compare with the
system’s built-in wc command?
$ export LANG=C
$ time wc -w ascii.txt
9873630 ascii.txt
real 0m0.447s
Ouch! The C version is almost 18 times faster.
25. A second try
Does it help if we recompile with optimisation?
$ ghc -fforce-recomp -O --make WC
$ time ./WC ascii.txt
9873630 ascii.txt
real 0m7.696s
So that made our code 5% faster. Ugh.
26. What’s going on here?
Remember that in Haskell, a string is a list. And a list is
represented as a linked list.
This means that every character gets its own list element, and list
elements are not allocated contiguously. For large data structures,
list overhead is negligible, but for characters, it’s a total killer.
So what’s to be done?
Enter the bytestring.
27. The original code
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
f o r M a r g s $ a r g −> do
c o n t e n t <− r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h ( words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g )
28. The bytestring code
A bytestring is a contiguously-allocated array of bytes. Because
there’s no pointer-chasing overhead, this should be faster.
import q u a l i f i e d Data . B y t e S t r i n g . Char8 a s B
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
f o r M a r g s $ a r g −> do
c o n t e n t <− B . r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t l e n = l e n g t h (B . words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g )
Notice the import qualified—this allows us to write B instead of
Data.ByteString.Char8 wherever we want to use a name imported
from that module.
29. So is it faster?
How does this code perform?
$ time ./WC ascii.txt
9873630 ascii.txt
real 0m8.043s
$ time ./WC-BS ascii.txt
9873630 ascii.txt
real 0m1.434s
Not bad! We’re 6x faster than the String code, and now just 3x
slower than the C code.
30. Seriously? Bytes for text?
There is, of course, a snag to using bytestrings: they’re strings of
bytes, not characters.
This is the 21st century, and everyone should be using Unicode
now, right?
Our answer to this problem in Haskell is to use a package named
Data.Text.
31. Unicode-aware word count
import q u a l i f i e d Data . Text a s T
import Data . Text . E n c o d i n g ( d e c o d e U t f 8 )
import q u a l i f i e d Data . B y t e S t r i n g . Char8 a s B
main = do
a r g s <− getArgs
f o r M a r g s $ a r g −> do
b y t e s <− B . r e a d F i l e a r g
l e t content = decodeUtf8 bytes
l e n = l e n g t h (T . words c o n t e n t )
putStrLn ( show l e n ++ ” ” ++ a r g )
32. What happens here?
Notice that we still use bytestrings to read the initial data in.
Now, however, we use decodeUtf8 to turn the raw bytes from
UTF-8 into the Unicode representation that Data.Text uses
internally.
We then use Data.Text’s words function to split the big string into
a list of words.
33. Comparing Unicode performance
For comparison, let’s first try a Unicode-aware word count in C, on
a file containing 112.6 million characters of UTF-8-encoded Greek:
$ du -h greek.txt
196M greek.txt
$ export LANG=en_US.UTF-8
$ time wc -w greek.txt
16917959 greek.txt
real 0m8.306s
$ time ./WC-T greek.txt
16917959 greek.txt
real 0m7.350s
34. What did we just see?
Wow! Our tiny Haskell program is actually 13% faster than the
system’s wc command!
This suggests that if we choose the right representation, we can
write real-world code that is both brief and highly efficient.
This ought to be immensely cheering.
