Category Archives: Functional

The Power of Sample Code

What is wrong with OOP?

In the culture wars between “Object Oriented Programming” and Functional Programming, you will find proponents of OOP that argue that we are doing fine – why should we change? and proponents of FP that lists a litany of inherent problems with what we are doing today and point to the ways FP solves them. After I once was at an Object Bootcamp with Fred George I believe the two main schools of thought are both wrong. All the problems listed by the FP peeps are correct, but they are not inherent in OOP, actually OOP addresses a few of them, but we are as an industry not doing OOP.

I may feel Fred George is the Messiah, but he is not alone in his views. Greg Young has similar concerns.

Inheritance is not the Big Deal

I am old enough to remember Borland C++ ads from the 90s. It focused a lot on inheritance, and reuse through inheritance became the USP for object oriented languages.

As soon as you have written some code though, you realise inheritance is the worst, as it creates undue coupling, making changes very hard to implement.

When Borland made those ads about how Porsche Turbo inherited the Carrera but implemented a big fat rear wing, they had begun their foray into C++ because it offered a way to handle the substantial boilerplate involved in writing a program in Windows. It was relatively straightforward to implement the basics and create a usable abstraction on top of the raw Windows API that made the developer experience much more pleasant.

As visual designers became a thing, they wanted a way to map properties with code, so that UI components (those things implemented as objects we mentioned above) could be manipulated by a developer in design mode. “Property” setters, basically syntactic sugar disguising normal functions, allowed the UI designers to read settings from the object, and replace them with what the developer types in. With this work, Borland and Microsoft were working to catch up with InterfaceBuilder from NeXT Computer (the same thing that lives on today in the Apple MacOS/iOS SDK) that had bolted a different type system on top of C and called it Objective C – but that had a world leading visual designer at the time. Anyway, I think they were in a hurry and didn’t think things through.

Approaches to deal with big programs

In a large codebase, the big problem is achieving low coupling but high cohesion. This means, you want all the code that belongs together to live together but you don’t want to have to make changes in seemingly unrelated code to modify a piece of functionality.

In large problems of old, you could call any subroutine from anywhere else, and many resources were shared, meaning between the time you set a value in a variable and you read from it, some piece of code in between could have modified the value, and you would not be automatically able to know where this access is made and how to prevent it.

In FP, we use modules for scoping, meaning you group functions into modules to aid readability, but the key concept, the Big Idea is immutability. After a value is created, it exists globally, but since they are read-only once created, the drawbacks of global state go away. There is no way to change something that somebody else relies on. You can transform it into a new thing that you need, but the original value hangs around until it’s no longer needed. It is harder to accidentally break other code with changes you are making

The Big Idea in Object oriented development is Encapsulation. You put the data with the code and manipulate abstractions. This means that if you get your abstractions right, you can change or replace these abstractions without needing to make sweeping changes in the codebase.

The original concept of object orientation relied on independent small sub programs that communicated by message passing, implicitly imagining like an “in tray” of messages that the object could process at its own pace and then send a response when the work was completed. However – objects were in C++, Java and C# was implemented as special dynamically allocated structs to which you made function calls, i e they became decidedly more synchronous than they were in Smalltalk or Simula. You would recognise Erlang Processes and Actors as looking more like OG objects. You also see that what made objects useful were that they shared properties we today associate with the term micro services, but on a smaller scale.

So what’s the problem, and what’s up with the title of this blog post?

Java, and C# arguably even more so, took the Big Idea and tossed it out the window. Property Get/Property Set to support novelties like graphical designers and visual components are a clear violation of encapsulation. Why are we letting objects access data that lives in other objects? The need to do that is a huge red flag that your model is incorrect. Both the bible, i.e. Refactoring, by Fowler and the actual Bible condemn this, this feature envy.

But why did these properties survive the nineties and live on into modern day? Why have they made things worse with auto properties?

Sample code

When you learn a new language, or to code in general, the main threshold is getting to the point where you write idiomatic code in that language. I e you use familiar phrases. You indent the code in a certain way, you name things according to a certain standard and you use familiar ways to do things like open a database connection, make a HTTP request et c, that a seasoned programmer would be familiar with. Unfortunately- in C# at least, these antipatterns are canon at this point, so to write properly encapsulated code would maybe cause a casual reviewer to ask WTF and be sceptical.

What is canon comes from the publicly available body of work that a beginner can reasonably access. Meaning, effectively Microsoft sets the bar when they announce features, document them and create samples.

There are some issues here. If you look at a large piece of sample code, you may notice how difficult it is to identify the key concept being demoed as the logging code or error handling bulk up the code in a way that is distracting, so brevity must be allowed to remain a priority, clearly.

At the edges where the code starts interacting with network and storage, this type of organisation isn’t inherently despicable either, so a blanket ban is perhaps not the way forward either.

How do we make it clear to new OO devs that when they fill that empty Models folder their project template creates for them with code they would be better off thinking OO proper?

By that I mean making classes that are extremely small, use value objects, prefer private fields, avoid properties et cetera. My suspicion is that any attempt at conveying this programming style through the medium of sample code in templates or documentation is doomed. The bulk of code necessary to not only prove the concept but to in fact make it part of the vernacular would require a large number of people making quite a lot of good code public do that new learners can assimilate the knowledge.

I think good OO code is scarce. Getting the abstractions right is just too hard, you will have compromises in various places, and all the tools tempt you with ways to stray from the narrow path of righteousness, but with modern refactoring tools you should be able to address some of the issues amd continually strive to make the code better.

Incidentally, with properly sized objects you can unit test without cheating (using internal helper methods, or by using mocks), so there is scope to brighten up the tests as well.

Giraffe F# update

In a previous post I have written about Giraffe and shown some workarounds for what I perceived as limitations considering my existing enterprise ecosystem.

Now that Giraffe has turned 3.0 loads of things have improved even from my perspective. Obviously they are now competing in performance benchmarks, so loads of optimisation work has happened behind the scenes. For me, though – the most interesting bit is to see how they dealt with my complaints.

Configuration, logging and service location is now available through extension methods on the context.

Response handlers now handle streams and chunked responses.

Content negotiation looks very clean.

We have of course welcomed these improvements and use them in all our F# APIs.

The only remaining complaint is that the Swagger support is still not usable enough for our purposes. The fact that we would have to configure an additional separate nuget source onto get the package prevents us from actually using it in anger although showing API actions was simple enough but I’m unclear as to how to document request and response payloads – but that only becomes worth exploring when the package is served from

Red mist

Sometimes you get so upset about something you need to blog about it, and ranting on Twitter, Facebook and Channel 9 comments just did not quite seem enough.

The insult, and the injury

I watched a Channel 9 talk about the “future of C# and VB” by Jay Schmeltzer from DEVintersection where he went over the future of the .NET stack, and started out by looking over the Stack Overflow statistics of programming languages that I have addressed before. He showed the graph of Most Popular Technologies showing C# placed prominently fourth behind Java, SQL and JavaScript, then Jay showed the category Most Loved languages, where Microsoft  have a runaway hit with F# on third place, and then C# way down on 10th place. Obviously, VB was right on top of the Most Feared, but that you knew already. Jay expressed much pride in having C# all the way up on 10th of most loved languages and then said “and we have Microsoft’s F# up here on 3rd, but that is of course more of a … well,  C# is of course mainstream in a different way”. So in other words, not even a pretence that F# is a first class citizen in .NET.

Contrast with Apple. From almost single handed creating Objective C into something that is in existence and popular despite the crushing superiority in funding and mindshare of C++ – Apple basically told everybody that (the F# clone) Swift is it from now on. They basically did a VB6 -> C# sort of story, telling everybody that they were welcome to use that old stuff but they really should get on board with the modern technologies.

Contrast that with the above statement from top brass at Microsoft.

So basically, in this blog I am trying to collect ways which a dark matter C# developer can just start using F# today thanks to the extremely ambitious efforts of the friendly and hard-working F# community, and show to the extreme extent Microsoft isn’t bothering at all – ignoring the goldmine they are sitting on. I’m trying to find ways which make things easier for existing Microsoft-focused developers, so I will be collating the things you can use to go F# today for the crummy ASP.NET LOB apps that make up the bread and butter of the C# world.

The comeback

My goal is providing ways which you can go F# today, and immediately write less code with fewer bugs that do the things your C# code does today. You will eventually discover cooler things, like package management using Paket (wich support Nuget package streams and maintaining dependencies directly from GitHub or similar) amd the very F# web framework and using FAKE as a build system rather than MSBuild, which helps if you have complex builds where you would like to not mess with XML and rather read F# code. You may perhaps find other ways to persist data that are more natural to use in F# and you will have little problem learning them once you get over the hump, but just to make the barrier to entry extremely low, let’s keep things familiar and non-scary. The things that would come for free if Microsoft had devoted more than a fraction of means towards F# in Visual Studio is the templating that makes C# so easy to use when creating websites and web services. To achieve that ease-of-use we have to rely on the community, and they have despite the odds come up with a few competitive options over the years. I have compiled these on my F# for C# people page which I hope to keep updated.

F# puzzle

One of my colleagues at Jayway launched a functional puzzle and solicited responses via Github gists. The challenge was as follows:

  1. Write a function that, given a sequence of either positive or negative integers, returns true if any subset of the list sums up to zero. Eg:
    find-solutions ([-7 4 3 8 -5]) => true
    find-solutions ([-6 2 3]) => false
  2. Make it work with any number, not just zero. Eg:
    find-solutions (0, [-7 4 3 8 -5]) => true
    find-solutions (13, [-7 4 3 8 -5]) => false
  3. Make it return all matching sequences, instead of a boolean. Eg:
    find-solutions (0, [-7 4 3 8 -5]) => [ [-7 4 3] [-7 4 8 -5] ]
    find-solutions (13, [-7 4 3 8 -5]) => []
  4. Make it take any predicate for the sum, not just equal to a number. Eg:
    find-solutions (isZero, [-7 4 3 8 -5]) => [ [-7 4 3] [-7 4 8 -5] ]
    find-solutions (isOdd, [-7 4 3]) => [ [-7] [3] [-7 4] [4 3] ]

Of course, me being an F# n00b I ended up at StackOverflow within hours of trying my hand at this, and I also asked among code monkeys on Facebook,  so I will not submit an answer is it wouldn’t be my own. My colleagues went ahead and figured out solutions on their own rather than use Google engineering like I did.

Anyway, as you can imagine, the first bit is the hard one. With higher order functions, delegating the actual filtering is done easily thereafter by supplying  the comparer function as a parameter.

So what do you do? I looked at many solutions, but couldn’t manage to use the comme il faut solution with a permutation tree, but went with a list of permutations instead which I then could trivially recurse through to see if I ever find a match.

If you are using Google engineering to solve F# problems, be aware that the old function Seq.map_concat has been renamed Seq.collect, which is a clear improvement.

In my case I found my permutation function on StackOverflow, provided by the excellent Tomáš Petříček, see blogroll, and just added my c0dez to find matches. This is from a console app, so hence the EntryPoint business.

let rec permutations list taken = 
  seq { if Set.count taken = List.length list then yield [] else
        for l in list do
          if not (Set.contains l taken) then 
            for perm in permutations list (Set.add l taken)  do
              yield l::perm }

let rec isMakingZero acc lst =
    match lst with
     | [] -> false
     | a :: tail -> (acc + a = 0) || isMakingZero (acc + a) tail 

let rec testpaths pathlist =
    if Seq.length pathlist = 0 then
        isMakingZero 0 (Seq.head pathlist) || testpaths (Seq.skip 1 pathlist)

let main argv = 
    printfn "First %A"  (testpaths (permutations [1; -2; 3; -5] Set.empty))
    printfn "Second %A" (testpaths (permutations [1; -3; 2; -5] Set.empty))
    0 // return an integer exit code


As you can imagine, you just supply a function to testpaths that then gets passed down to isMakingZero, which should be renamed, in order to solve the remaining tasks.

F# Actor: An Actor Library

F# Actor: An Actor Library.

This is a follow-up on my post on the Actor Model, as I was very generous in my definition of F# Agents as a full-fledged Actor framework. F#:er s have been wanting something like the Akka framework for Scala. Colin Bull from whom I also reblogged the F# and Raven post below, posted about a framework on his blog that will provide this, and it also explains what the difference is and what the requirements are for an Actor framework.


The Actor Model

In the .NET community perhaps the Actor model of computing is not all that familiar. In this post I will briefly describe my understanding of the possibilities it gives the “real life” Enterprise LOB-application developer without going into specifics.

Different abstraction

The Actor model is a different abstraction from the normally more machine-like multithreaded server process model. This model sees the software system as a set of Actors listening for incoming messages. Messages are sent using to mailing addresses, conceptually, as in – not a hard reference to a running piece of code of any kind. An actor can only send messages to other actors that it knows the address of. It will know only of actors it receives messages from or creates itself. Unintuitively, the communication between actors is handled through a concept known as Channels, which would imply something more direct than a mail-drop system. In common implementations today, channels are implemented as queues.

The Actor will react to the incoming message by either sending a finite number of messages, creating a finite number of actors as well as deciding how to handle the next incoming message. The messages contain all the information needed for this processing, so there is no global state to modify or any shared resources to wait for. Each actor has its own execution context. Whether you execute all actors in the same thread in the same process or whether you have tens of thousands of separate machines with a multitude of threads of execution in several processes does not matter to the actor. This leads to a fantastic potential for scalability as there is little or no negative coupling.

Real-world examples?

If you think about it more closely, the Actor model can be said to better model the organizations we are building systems for. If a process requires a certain number of steps to be taken, modelling the steps, or actually the coworkers performing the step, as actors and the piece of paper or file that would travel from desk to desk can be modelled as a message. Just like faceless corporate drones, actors can be stateful, as is evident from the definition above.

In the Actor model data is not encapsulated but rather transmitted as messages between actors that perform actions with that data and then send the information forward. In object oriented programming you still send messages, conceptually, but actually you call methods on the object, but the objects are one with their data and the only way to modify the data is by sending a message to the object and hope the object will allow itself to be modified in the way you want.

There are large practical similarities between classic object oriented programming and the Actor model, and the Actor model frameworks implement actors as “objects” and use the OOP toolbox to implement the infrastructure that the frameworks provide, but the conceptual differences are importan remember when working with this model.

What frameworks exist for .NET?

There are two well known Actor model framework for .NET, Retlang ( and Stact. They both provide the basics you can expect from a framework of this kind, only Retlang stray somewhat from the Actor model nomenclature and provide no remote messaging capability, focusing on high performance in-memory messaging. It is unclear how development proceeds with Retlang, but there is support for .NET 4.

Another framework that supports Actor model is Stact which uses concepts more closely linked to the specification and would be preferable by those who like conceptual clarity.

Recently, F# has introduced the concept of F# Agents, which is essentially actors. They have isolation between instances (actors) and respond asynchronously to incoming statically typed messages.  (

We will proceed and show a brief example using F# as it is less verbose than other ways of implementing this architecture. The examples are slightly modified from the above link and also ripped straight from the horse’s mouth, i e  Don Syme’s post 

open Microsoft.FSharp.Control
Agent<‘T> = MailboxProcessor<‘T>

let agent =
fun inbox ->
        let rec loop n = async
msg = inbox.Receive()
“now seen a total of %d messages”
loop (n+1)
        loop 0 )

for i in 1 .. 1000 do
    agent.Post (sprintf “Hello %d” i )

The above agent uses a builtin class called MailboxProcessor that allows you to post messages, passing in the actual Processor function as an argument, “putting the fun back into functional”.

Of course this is a silly example that doesn’t make anybody happy. Let’ s show something more network-related, so that you can imagine the implications.

open System.Net.Sockets


/// serve up a stream of quotes

let serveQuoteStream (client: TcpClient) = async {

    let stream = client.GetStream()

    while true do

        do! stream.AsyncWrite( “MSFT 10.38″B )

        do! Async.Sleep 1000.0 // sleep one second



What is the point of this then? Well, the agents are asynchronous and take no resources while waiting.  You might as well create a bunch of actors that will all lie there waiting for an incoming request and deal with them asynchronously with mindblowing efficiency. Every Actor (or instance of Agent) has its own state completely isolated from the others. See? No problems with shared mutable state. Put the foot on the accelerator and press it all the way to the floor.

Error management in Actors

Below is an example of error management using a supervisor that will take care of your vast pool of actors and deal with their failures. Again, contrived example, but remember you have all of the .NET framework at your disposal, so just imagine the supervisor doing some really clever reporting or cleanup.

open Microsoft.FSharp.Control

type Agent<'T> = MailboxProcessor<'T>

module Agent = 
   let reportErrorsTo (supervisor: Agent<exn>) (agent: Agent<_>) = 
       agent.Error.Add(fun error -> supervisor.Post error); agent

   let start (agent: Agent<_>) = agent.Start(); agent

let supervisor = 
   Agent<int * System.Exception>.Start(fun inbox ->
     async { while true do 
               let! (agentId, err) = inbox.Receive()
               printfn "an error '%s' occurred in agent %d" err.Message agentId })

let agents = 
   [ for agentId in 0 .. 10000 ->
        let agent = 
            new Agent<string> (fun inbox ->
               async { 
                    while true do 
                        let! msg = inbox.Receive()
                        if msg.Contains("agent 99") then 
                            failwith "I don't like that cookie!" }
        agent.Error.Add(fun error -> supervisor.Post (agentId, error))
        (agentId, agent) ]

for (agentId, agent) in agents do 
   agent.Post (sprintf "message to agent %d" agentId )


The implications that arise from the Actor model and F# Agents in particular is that where you can use messaging (you are free to use F# Type Providers to make your various XML WebService packets become F# Types) you can process them with great efficiency to trigger all sorts of  .NET functionality asynchronously. You could use F# Agents to back your WebApi services to make the code more concise and responsive. There is no end to the possibilities.

For further reading, please don’t hesitate to follow Don Syme at  and the various blogs and documentation available through there.

So what’s this FP thingy?

People are talking about Scala, F#, Erlang, Haskell and what-have-you. What is the point of functional? What is wrong with OOP? How does it all work?

Here are some videos you might want to look at. Maybe you find them helpful, maybe not.

Jessica Kerr: Functional Concepts for Object Oriented developers

This introduces the concept of immutability and pure functions and how your life gets better if you use those concepts in your everyday life. Of course, in DDD Value Objects and immutability is king as well, for the very reasons Kerr brings up in the video.

Brian Beckman: Don’t fear the Monad

This is a scary attempt at explaining monoids and monads. You may follow it, you may not. Don’t get too distracted or discouraged. Think of it monads in terms of LINQ and composability.

Erik Meijer C# Lecture, Functional Programming and Monads

This talk is affected by Erik Meijers huge brain and is scarily influenced by Haskell, but makes sense if you saw the video above.

F# Creator Don Syme does a Tutorial

Don Syme F# Tutorial Part 1

You should skip the first part unless you want to know from whence F# came. There is very little syntax info in this chapter.

Don Syme F# Tutorial Part 2
Loops, data structures, beginning of pattern matching.

Don Syme F# Tutorial Part 3