Conal Elliott proposed functional reactive programming twenty years ago with a clear denotational semantics. Over time the idea gained popularity but the original conception became blurred. In this video Conal explains FRP’s original formulation and its benefits.

Slides are available here.

Summary

• FRP is is receiving more interest now but has become misunderstood
  • The notion of FRP was very precisely defined 20 years ago
  • It allows us to reason precisely and simply
  • The term has been used incorrectly to describe systems like Elm, Bacon, and Reactive Extensions
• The true essence is shaped by two fundamental ideas
  • Continuous time (its non-strictness enables modularity, see Why Functional Programming Matters)
  • Simple denotation allows dependable reasoning
• Reasons for continuous rather than discrete
• Approximations compose badly, so postpone until the end
• We don’t need to have an opinion about what FRP means! Use math.
  • There is one datatype: Behavior a
  • Then a meaning, or m, of a behavior maps a behavior to a function on time. m :: Behavior a -> (Reals -> a)
  • The original formulation of FRP from 1994 lacked the modern vocabulary.
• The modernized formulation
  • Behaviors are Functors, Applicatives, and Monoids
  • If a is a Monoid then so is Event a
  • Comparing the original semantics of Behavior with typeclass instances
  • Event is just Behavior composed with the list constructor

Related Posts

• A Sensible Intro to FRP
• The Design of Purescript Halogen
• Functional Front-End Coding
• Writing a React JS front-end in Haskell