## Friday, October 16, 2015

### My Concern with Concerns

Introduction
In the Computer Science world we often talk about the value of Separation of Concerns (SoC). This Wikipedia article on the subject says that well-separated code is more modular, maintainable, and reusable. The basic idea is that we separate our code into components by their roles so that those pieces can be used and developed independently as well as assembled into a greater whole.

However, I am concerned with the traditional treatment of concerns. We often look at concerns as a breakdown of our application into various interconnected pieces, or objects. For example, you might have a game program with a rendering system, an input system, a physics system, and so on. A spreadsheet application might have concerns regarding computations, persistence, and input. At a high level, and borrowing from the Wikipedia article, you might have concerns for things like business logic, persistence, data access, and presentation.

Two major flaws with the typical treatment of SoC as described above stand out to me:
1. In many of these systems the various parts require knowing about each other to the degree that if you use one, you must also use the others. This leads to complected, interconnected systems. Rich Hickey talks all about it here.
2. We have jumped past some core fundamental concerns of how we think about computing and moved straight to high level constructs (usually objects, layers, or systems). This is what I want to talk about.
These are the three low level concerns I am concerned about:

1. Representation: How do you describe the world?
The first concern to consider is how you represent your world. In a traditional object oriented approach, the simple solution is objects with their corresponding fields. Even in many functional or mostly functional languages like Scala you will use value types to represent your world. Consider the following three ways to represent a person:

Java
package concerns;

public class Person {
private String name;
private int age;
private double weight;

public Person() {
}

public Person(String name, int age, double weight) {
this.name = name;
this.age = age;
this.weight = weight;
}

public String getName() {
return name;
}

public void setName(String name) {
this.name = name;
}

public int getAge() {
return age;
}

public void setAge(int age) {
this.age = age;
}

public double getWeight() {
return weight;
}

public void setWeight(double weight) {
this.weight = weight;
}
}
Scala
case class Person(name : String, age : Int, weight : Double)
Clojure
{ :name "Zaphod" :age 21 :weight 160.0 }
Clojure is unique in that practitioners generally represents the world as simple data structures. Other languages would have you define a class for your data (Often in a painfully verbose way, I might add), but Clojure simply views everything as data. You can use gen-class or defrecord, but you generally don't unless you are shooting for Java interop or feel the need for a defined structural type.

Clojure is relatively unique in that it allows you to flexibly represent anything using a small number of primitives and heterogeneous, nested data structures. You have a single, uniform approach to representing anything as data, whether it be simple or extremely complicated.

Classes, on the other hand, require a new class for any level of modification of representation. A person with height would need to extend a base Person (e.g. PersonWithHeight extends Person). This leads to elaborate type hierarchies and an explosion of representations. Classes also fail disastrously when dealing with temporal changes. Suppose you want to transition from a Caterpillar to a Butterfly or from an Employee to a Manger (You got a promotion. Congratulations!). How do you handle these? Do you pass roles around? Does that work in the caterpillar to butterfly case? Is there a GoF anti-pattern for that?

This is not to say classes do not have their place. If your representation is well-known at design time a class can be an excellent fit for your problem. For example, a 3D mathematical vector is very well defined with fields along 3 axes. However, using classes to represent things with a wide variety of potential fields or that transition over time can be a disaster.

Clojure's simple approach to the concern of representation is wonderful, but we are here to discuss the separation of concerns, so let's talk about another concern that we need to keep separate...

2. Behavior: How do you modify or use your representation of the world?
The next concern is how you modify the representation of your world, or how you transition from one representation to another. Tied to this is how you do things with your objects, even if you don't modify them. In OOP this is done by class methods that operate on themselves or objects they are familiar with. This seems natural, as most verbs tend to operate on some noun. For example, a rename method clearly must rename something. What is that thing? For an object, it logically is the thing rename is attached to.

However, this complects the concerns of representation and behavior.

Consider the trivial situation of managing named objects. What if I want to rename a person, car, dog, or file? In OOP, I need to add a method to every object (e.g. setName or rename) that is nameable. You might argue for a common base class (e.g. AbstractRenameable), but now everything must extend this class, and you don't want to waste your one-shot inheritance on something so trivial. Instead, maybe you implement IName and proxy a DefaultName. In any event, you are complected up the wazoo for something so simple as the ability to rename an object. And you have to do this every time, for every field on every object.

Wouldn't it be better to have some independent function that renames every structurally similar piece of data? I can do this trivially in Clojure like this:
(defn rename[o name](assoc o :name name))

(pp/pprint
(rename
{ :name "Zaphod Beeblebrox"
:age 21
:weight 160.0 }
"Ford Prefect"))

(pp/pprint
(rename
{ :type :spaceship
:name "Heart of Gold"
:color :red }
"Millenium Falcon"))
This produces the following output:
{:name "Ford Prefect", :age 21, :weight 160.0}
{:type :spaceship, :name "Millenium Falcon", :color :red}
One function that works on any structurally similar object. Compare this to putting a rename method on every named object in existence. This is what I call a separation of concerns.

Let's look at a slightly less trivial example. Suppose you are writing a sprite-based game and have a variety of scene elements that you want to render. Each element must have information for its location and the image to be drawn. Let's look at how you might render a sprite-based image in our three languages using Java 2D:

Java
Here is what you would add to the above class:
public void render(Graphics2D g){
g.drawImage(getImage(), getX(), getY(), null);
}
This, of course, assumes you have also added fields and methods to manage the image and the item's location. You've now fundamentally intertwined your class with the Java 2D library, some AWT classes for handing images, and whatever else you've done to make this work.

Scala
Scala suffers from the same problem as Java because it still complects the concerns of representation and behavior. In Scala's defense, it does have duck typing, structural typing, and traits that allow you to do a variety of things to repeat yourself a lot less. It's a better situation, but it does add complexity to your solution and you have to go to a lot of effort to separate your behavior from your representation.

Clojure
Clojure completely separates the concerns of representation and behavior by using pure data structures to represent data and functions to represent behavior. The only required interface is correct structural inputs to functions.
(defn render [g {:keys [image x y]}]
(.drawImage g image x y nil))
In this example, any data conforming to the required interface (Having entries for the :image, :x, and :y keys) can be rendered. The data has no knowledge of Graphics2D and is only loosely coupled to AWT by having a field entry referencing an image. This data can be removed from the map entirely if not needed as opposed to an object which would have a null field that still references a foreign API.

We're now double-complected in OOP-land and have complete separation with Clojure. Let's throw another concern into the mix...

3. Management: How do you keep track of the current state of the world?
Separate from the idea of how you represent and act in your world is how you keep track of your current (and perhaps historical) view of the world. This includes not just a handle to the current value of the world, but a mechanism for watching for changes and responding accordingly.

In Java this is accomplished via a fully implemented Java Bean, with getters, setters, property change support, property change listeners, and so on. Your bean class will have a mechanism to wire up things that listen for changes and changes are fired when change occurs. Again, we've further tied another concern to the object. We're now complected x3.

Scala doesn't address this concern directly, but you've got options. You can create Java Beans in Scala, but beans are an ugly, complicated mess that should be avoided if possible. You can use the Akka library, but in my experience Akka is too heavyweight and complicated for most problems.

Clojure, on the other hand, has atoms, agents, and refs. These concurrency primitives are designed exactly for the concern of state management. These 3 items each hold a value as their current state and have methods for performing safe modification synchronously, asynchronously, uncoordinated, or coordinated, depending on which primitive you need. All have the same API for dereferencing, watching for changes, and validating state. These primitives completely separate the concern of state management from the other concerns described in this post. You can read more about these primitives here.

One really great thing about Clojure concurrency primitives is that they are easy to use from any other JVM language, so you can leverage them in your Java or Scala projects to separate this concern if desired.

Summary and Conclusions
The following table summarizes what I have discussed in this post.

ConcernOOPFP
StateObject FieldsValues/Data
BehaviorObject MethodsFunctions
ManagementObject ReferencesConcurrency Primitives
Separation LevelComplectedSeparated

The key takeaway is that objects fundamentally complect all concerns by their very nature. Clojure's separation of data, functions, and state management allow for a clean separation of these concerns as part of the language design. So, rather than beginning to design the world as objects, layers, and systems start with data, functions, and state. The former solution automatically puts you on the road to complexity while the latter allows you to keep your concerns separated all the way down.