Skip to main content

Why i changed the blog's name

This one's *not* be about programming... mostly. Ok, it is. It always is.

This is an explanation on why I changed the name I had for this blog. The previous name was officially Run or Debug, but now I called Left Fold. Why would you do that, you ask?

Well, the main story is because I hated the previous name but still I didn't have the courage (or the will) to change it. And truly, I didn't have a better name in mind... Until recently!

I started to learn F# recently and as a guy who comes mostly from C# a lot of concepts were new to me, and some were not new, I just didn't know their name. It has been quite a journey, as anyone who has the same background as me would understand. I jumped from a general OOP language to a non-pure functional language.

One of those concepts "learned" is called a left fold. I am aware it does exist in C# too, and it is all but new, but hear me out, I just never had thought about it this way. So, what the hell is a left fold after all? Let's dive in this surprisingly simple concept.

Think of a list of values. Let's say, a list of strings with the alphabet inside:

["a"; "b"; "c"; "d"; "e"; "f"; "g"; "h"; "i"; "j"; "k"; "l"; "m"; "n"; "o"; "p"; "q"; "r"; "s"; "t"; "u"; "v"; "w"; "x"; "y"; "z"]

The concept of fold is simply this: take an initial state and for each letter in that list produce a new state based on the letter. Then feed that state to the function along with the next letter and produce the next state. Let's see an example in C#:

Of course, everyone using Linq knows the Aggregate method. But really, how frequently do you use it? We use the variations surely... Sum, Max, Min, etc. But I never really thought about those methods in terms that they might be just a derivation from an underlying concept. And that concept is the left fold!

Let's look again at how it works, in simple terms:
  1. Start with a state. In the snippet above this state is an empty string implicitly, but there is another overload that accepts a seed state.
  2. Take that state and an item in the list, and execute the function passed in. The function should produce a new state.
  3. Repeat 2 for all items in the list.
Now let's define some of the LINQ methods in terms of Aggregate, just for kicks. This time we'll use a list of ints

So, you can see the usefulness of the concept now. In fact, many more Linq operators can be defined in terms of a left fold, those were just the most obvious ones. Of course, in the background they are actually not defined like that, but i'm getting a point across.

This is a big topic, but I don't want a big post, so let's call it a day.
TL;DR: I didn't like the previous name and I like this one because of how useful the actual concept is.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

From crappy to happy - dependency what, now?

Following the introduction on this series on a previous post, we will now talk about dependency injection and how it has the effect of allowing for more testable code. Sometimes when I talk about this concept it is difficult to explain the effect that applying it might have on the tests. For that reason I think it is better to demonstrate with a near-real-world situation. Obviously, keep in mind this is not real code, so don't worry about the design or implementation details that don't contribute to the point being discussed. The code As you can see, it is simple. There's a class called ShipManager (what else?) that receives position updates for the ships. It keeps the last position reported from each ship and does some calculation to see how much the ship moved. It assigns some values to the update and finally it persists the final version of the update. How do we start testing? When you think about it, tests are dead simple. A test either passes or it doesn...

Why is the Single Responsability Principle important?

The Single Responsability Principle is one of the five S.O.L.I.D. principles in which i base my everyday programming. It tells us how a method or class should have only one responsability. Not a long time ago i was designing a reporting service with my colleague Nuno for an application module we were redoing and we had a method that was responsible for being both the factory method of a popup view and showing it to the user. You can see where this is going now... I figured out it would not be a that bad violation of the principle, so we moved on with this design. The method was called something like "ShowPrintPopup" and it took an IReport as an argument. All this was fine, but then we got to a point where we needed to have a permissions system to say if the user was able to export the report to Excel, Word, PDF, etc... The problem was the print popup would need to know beforehand if it would allow the user to export the report or not, so that it could show it's UI a...

The repository's repository

Ever since I started delving into architecture,  and specifically service oriented architecture, there has been one matter where opinions get divided. Let me state the problem first, and then take a look at both sides of the barricade. Given that your service layer needs to access persistent storage, how do you model that layer? It is almost common knowledge what to do here: use the Repository design pattern. So we look at the pattern and decide that it seems simple enough! Let's implement the shit out of it! Now, let's say that you will use an ORM - here comes trouble. Specifically we're using EF, but we could be talking about NHibernate or really any other. The real divisive theme is this question: should you be using the repository pattern at all when you use an ORM? I'll flat out say it: I don't think you should... except with good reason. So, sharpen your swords, pray to your gods and come with me to fight this war... or maybe stay in the couch? ...