Programs as Values, Part I : Intro & Compositionality

This is the first post in a series about a programming paradigm I like to call programs as values.

In Haskell and part of the Scala community, it is also known as purely functional programming (or pure FP), but I will not use that term here, to avoid any ambiguity with the discussion about imperative vs declarative code, which are both possible within programs as values.

I also wish to distinguish programs as values from other approaches to functional programming such as effects and handlers as seen in Unison, Eff or Koka, which I might talk about in the future.

I will make the following assumptions about my readers, based on my typical audience:

  • You know Scala syntax, as well as FP basics like ADTs, recursion, higher order functions and pattern matching.
  • You’re are vaguely aware of the existence of libraries like cats-effect and fs2, for example through one of my talks.
  • You’re looking for a deeper, lasting understanding of the core ideas behind programs as values, in addition to the specifics of a single library.


Let’s start from the concept of compositionality, which is the idea that we can understand the whole by understanding the parts and the rules of composition.

The key characteristic of compositional systems is that they can be decomposed into parts that still make sense on their own and, conversely, they can be built by assembling smaller parts together.
This fits well with the limited capacity of our brains: if I asked you to build a model of the Colosseum, would you rather assemble it with Lego, or sculpt it with marble?

To see how the concept applies to software, we will consider this simple example program: repeatedly print “hello”, stopping after 10 iterations, once per second.

We can implement the above program with:

var i = 0
while(i < 10) {
 i = i + 1

but note how that’s not very compositional. First of all, two logical subprograms cannot be combined without changes:

def p1 = {
 var i = 0
 while(i < 10) {
  i = i + 1

def p2 = Thread.sleep(1000)

def p3 = ??? //combine p1 and p2?

And second, not all the constituent parts make sense on their own, for example i = i + 1 only makes sense when considered together with var i = 0 and while(i < 10).

Low compositionality is fine in small doses, but it scales poorly with complexity: even a slightly more complex version of the program (e.g stop after 10 seconds or 10 iterations, waiting a random interval between iterations) leads to more entangled code. In the extreme, it will result in spaghetti code, code which has such a low level of compositionality that it can’t be separated into its constituent parts at all.

Compare instead with this alternative solution, which uses fs2.Stream:

val p = IO.println("hello")


This code is highly compositional, it is made of smaller parts, which all make sense as individual programs:

  • IO.println("hello") is the program that prints “hello”.
  • repeatEval is the program that executes another program indefinitely.
  • take(n) is the program that evaluates the first n iterations of another program.
  • metered is the program that executes another program at the given rate.

Even without understanding all the details, it should be clear that it maintains this compositional quality in the more complex example too:

val randomWait =
    .flatMap { random => Stream.repeatEval(random.nextInt) }
    .evalMap { n => IO.sleep(n.nanos) }

val hello = IO.println("hello")



The two examples above are rather extreme, and may give the impression that compositionality is a binary attribute. In reality, it’s on a spectrum: the more compositional our software is, the better we can cope with its complexity.
And that leads me to the main point of this post: what is programs as values about?

Programs as values is about removing barriers to compositionality.