So it turns out C is a functional language too!

On the way to Strange Loop this year, John Van Enk and I were trying to find a way to write some C code that avoided dynamic (malloc) allocation. We discovered a technique that allows you to forgo the use of malloc in many common cases. It also enables very pure functional C code.

You doubt? I shall demonstrate! I will show how you can write a linked list reversal function in C using:

No mutation!

Linked lists, with no malloc!

And this isn’t just a trick that only works in this special case, it is quite generally applicable.

Behold!

#include <stdbool.h> #include <stdint.h> #include <stdlib.h> #include <stdio.h> /* This is our integer linked list type (Null is an empty list) (it is immutable, note the consts) */ typedef struct IntList_s const * const IntList; static IntList const Nil = NULL; /* the empty list */ /* This is a Cons element. (singly linked list element) (note: also immutable) */ typedef struct IntList_s { int32_t const value; IntList next; } Cons; /* This is a pointer to where we are going to store the the "result" of our computation. We won't really know the type of it until we have our whole chain of calls built up, so it's void * for now. I think if I did this in C++ I could use templates to make this statically typed. */ typedef void * const CPS_Result; /* prototypes and typedefs for the continuations */ typedef void (*MakeListCallback)(IntList list, CPS_Result result); void make_list( uint32_t const array_size , int32_t const array[] , IntList new_list , MakeListCallback const callback , CPS_Result result); void reverse_and_stuff(IntList list, CPS_Result result); void stuff_list(IntList list, CPS_Result result); typedef void (*ReversedListCallback)( IntList reversed_list , CPS_Result result); void reverse( IntList list , IntList reversed_list , ReversedListCallback const callback , CPS_Result result); typedef void(*VoidMappable)(int32_t const value); void void_map_array( VoidMappable const f , uint32_t const size , int32_t const * const array); void print_value(int32_t const value); /* Define an array to reverse, and an array to store the result, and then do stuff */ int main(int argc, char * argv[]) { (void)argc; (void)argv; int32_t my_array[] = { 2, 5, 6, 1, 9, 23, 7654, 12, 0, 4}; uint32_t const my_array_size = sizeof(my_array)/sizeof(my_array[0]); int32_t result[my_array_size]; /* call make_list and pass reverse_and_stuff as the "continuation". The action to perform next. */ make_list(my_array_size, my_array, Nil, reverse_and_stuff, result); /* print out our reversed array */ void_map_array(print_value, my_array_size, result); printf("

"); return 0; } /* constructs a linked list from an array */ void make_list( uint32_t const array_size , int32_t const array[] , IntList new_list , MakeListCallback const callback , CPS_Result result) { if (array_size > 0) { Cons cell = { .value = array[array_size - 1], .next = new_list }; make_list(array_size - 1, array, &cell, callback, result); } else { /* call our "continuation" with our result */ callback(new_list, result); } } /* function that reverses a list and then stores it in an array */ void reverse_and_stuff(IntList list, CPS_Result result) { reverse(list, Nil, stuff_list, result); } /* stuffs a linked list into an array */ void stuff_list(IntList list, CPS_Result result) { if (Nil != list) { int32_t * array = result; array[0] = list->value; stuff_list(list->next, array + 1); } } void reverse( IntList list , IntList reversed_list , ReversedListCallback const callback , CPS_Result result) { if (Nil == list) { callback(reversed_list, result); } else { /* build up the reversed list */ Cons cell = { .value = list->value, .next = reversed_list }; reverse(list->next, &cell, callback, result); } } /* "loops" over an array and performs action f on each element */ void void_map_array( VoidMappable const f , uint32_t const size , int32_t const * const array) { if (size > 0) { f(array[0]); void_map_array(f, size - 1, array + 1); } } void print_value(int32_t const value) { printf("%d ", value); }

This style actually has a special name: Continuation Passing Style. If you’ve worked with node.js it should look familiar.

The trick is to allocate values on the stack and then pass pointers to them to the next “continuation” to build up your results. This lets you get away with a functional style in C without the need to call malloc and free (malloc and free pretty much ruin everything).

As long as your intermediate values don’t get so big that you blow the stack, you should be good. The main limitation is that you need to know the size of the return value.

Would this ever actually be useful?

While I find this style strangely addictive, I don’t think I would advocate its general use. However it has a few interesting advantages that might be handy in certain situations:

Fixed Memory Bounds – Since everything is allocated on the stack. If we can prove that our functions terminate (say we show that a function is structurally recursive ). We get a proof of finite memory use with it!

Better Function Composition – I was kinda surprised by this, but I guess I shouldn’t have been. The code is a bit more ugly, but it’s definitely easier to build large things up using smaller reusable pieces.

No Malloc – Almost non-existent allocation overhead.

So what does “functional language” mean, then?

Almost every language has a functional subset. And it seems pretty silly to call a language “functional” just because it has a functional subset.

I think it would be much more meaningful if we described a language as “functional” only if it encourages a functional style. A functional style is a style that emphasizes“values” over states or “places”, expressions over statements, recursion over mutation.

So my title is misleading. I don’t think C is a functional language. But it’s an awful lot of fun (and sometimes very useful) to use C’s functional subset.