Pure Functions and Immutable Objects

victor.rentea@gmail.com ♦ ♦ @victorrentea ♦ VictorRentea.ro
The Hitchhiker Guider to

Victor Rentea
Best Talks:
VictorRentea.ro
Independent Trainer & Consultant
Founder of
Bucharest Software Craftsmanship Community
Java Champion
❤️ Simple Design, Refactoring, Unit Testing ❤️

Technical Training
HibernateSpring Func Prog in Java
300+ days2000 devs8 years
Details for you or your company: VictorRentea.ro
40 companies
Follow me:
35K 4K 3K
Java PerformanceReactive-X
Design Patterns
Clean Code
Refactoring
Unit Testing
TDD
any
lang

162 © VictorRentea.ro
a training by
Life

a training by
checkCustomer(customer);
checkOrder(customer, order);
Mock-full tests
Race Bugs
A method changes a parameter: Surprise!
Different Results for Same Inputs
customer.setActive(true);
Temporal Coupling

a training by
do side-effects
return void sendEmail(Email):void
Command-Query Separation
setActive(true):void
return resultssearch(criteria):List
computePrice(movie):int
in 1994, by Bertrand Meyer
Pure Functions

a training by
No side effects
No INSERTs, POSTs, queues, files, fields,…
= 𝑀𝑎𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑎𝑙 𝐹𝑢𝑛𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠: 𝑓 𝑥, 𝑦 = 𝑥2
+ 𝑦
(logging doesn't count)
Referential Transparent
Same arguments ➔ same result
No current time, random, GET, SELECT…
≠ Idempotent
Pure Functions

a training by
Pure Functions : Quiz
f1(int x) {return x + 1;}
f2(Data d) {return ++d.x;}
f3() {d.incrementX(); return d.x;}
f4() {return querySQL(...);}
f5(int y) { return this.x + y; }
f6(Data d, int y) { return d.getX() + y; }
f7(int i) { if (i<0) throw new WrongInputException(); }
is this immutable?
Probable side effects
Expected to be pure

a training by
throw new E(); is pure
f(x) {
try {
//
}
}
catch (E) is pure?
if it always throws for the same inputs
it depends ...
* Some slightly disagree
on E
NO, if E can happen randomly
eg. IOException, OutOfMemory
YES, if E is thrown deterministically*
➔ Catch unexpected exceptions
in the outskirts of your code

a training by
Why we Love Pure Functions
➢No hidden inputs, only plain-sight return values and parameters
➢Easier to understand
➢Testable (less setup)
➢Fast & Composable: free to call them n times
➢No temporal coupling
➢Parallelizable

a training by
That's it!
I'll only write pure functions from now!
impossible
What kind of app doesn't change anything?

a training by
In Java there's no way to strictly enforce purity
So we'll live with both pure and impure functions
But how do we distinguish them?

a training by
do side-effects
return void sendEmail(Email):void
Command-Query Separation
setActive(true):void
return results
pure functions
search():List
computePrice(movie):int
Highlight Side Effects
computePriceAndAdjustMetrics(movie):int

a training by
You can do better!

a training by

a training by
functional core
Side-effects (Writes) +
Non-deterministic Reads
Expose them
Purify the most complex parts of your logic!

a training by
Purify the most complex parts of your logic!

a training by
Purifying Logic
Time and Random
Amount of time-dependent logic:
➢None (e.setCreationDate(now());) ➔ tolerate
➢Very little ➔ Inject a Clock / TimeProvider
➢Heavy (x-rare) ➔ expose a ..., time); parameter

a training by
Purifying Logic
No Files in Functional Core

a training by
Purifying Logic
Expose Read/Write from DB/APIs
Initial Read
Intermediary
(conditional?)
➔ Pass as Parameters
➔ Split-Phase Refactor f();
r=read();
f(r);
Writing Results ➔ Return Changes w=f();
persist(w);
r=read()

a training by
Purifying Logic
Expose Read/Write from DB/APIs
Initial Read
Intermediary
(conditional?)
➔ Pass as Parameters
➔ Split-Phase Refactor
r=read();
f(r);
r1=f1()
f2(r,r1...)
expose impurity
Writing Results ➔ Return Changes w=f();
persist(w);
r=read()

a training by
Implement as much logic
as pure functions
exposing impurity to the surface

a training by
Purifying Logic
Changing Objects' State
Immutable Objects

a training by
void f(Data data) {
...
if (data.getX() == 1) {
// will this run ?
}
}
void h() {
Data data = new Data(1);
obj.setData(data);
g(data);
}
obj
void g(Data data) {
data.setX(2);
mutateParam(data);
obj.mutateField();
f(data);
}
void setData(Data data) {
this.data = data;
}
void mutateField() {
this.data.setX(2);
}
same obj
in h() and g()
void mutateParam(Data data) {
data.setX(1);
}
x=
Long-lived mutable data
A Code Inspection Session
What code ran before,
having a reference
to my data instance?!
Mutable Data

a training by
void f(Data data) {
...
// will this run ?
}
}
void h() {
obj.setData(data);
g(data);
}
obj
void g(Data data) {
data.setX(2);
mutateParam(data);
obj.mutateField();
f(data);
}
void setData(Data data) {
this.data = data;
}
void mutateField() {
this.data.setX(2);
}
same obj
in h() and g()
void mutateParam(Data data) {
data.setX(1);
}
x=
Long-lived mutable data
What code ran before,
having a reference
to my data instance?!
Mutable DataImmutable Data

a training by
void f(Data data) {
...
// will this run ?
}
}
void g(Data data) {
f(data);
}
void h() {
g(data);
}
Immutable Data
Who created
the instance?!
Easier to trace
data changes
Real-world: 4+ functions in between
...
Real-world: 4+
...
x=

a training by
Designing Immutable Classes
public class A {
private final String s;
private final B b;
private final List<String> list;
public A(String s, B b, List<String> list) {
this.s = s;
this.b = b;
this.list = new ArrayList<>(list);
// validation ...
}
public List<String> getList() {
return unmodifiableList(list);
}
// other getters
// hashCode, equals on all fields = Value Object
// bits of LOGIC 💪
public A withS(String newS) {
return new A(newS, b, list);
}
}
Mutates by creating
a new instance
Stops creator keeping a reference
Overkill, as problem is not the creator but the "man-in-the-middle"
Oh, so
we CAN
mutate them!
@lombok.With
Iterable<String> getList() {
List<? extends String> getList() {or
record
(java 15)
Java collections are mutable😞
final
Afraid of hackers? 😨
@lombok.Value
or, until then...

a training by

a training by
A function changing the object has to return it:
data = f(data);
Imagine data has 20 fields
When did data.x change?
... every time
data = g(data);
data = h(data);
The mess is still here!

a training by
data = f(data);
final variables won't allow this
IntelliJ underlines
reassigned variables ❤️
By the way, there are ways to add final automatically at code cleanup
Real Problem
Too Large Immutable Objects
smallerData = f(...);
➔ break them
If they change together,
they stick together
data = g(data);
data = h(data);
withX
withY
withZ

a training by
Wait a second,
I know...

a training by
void f(VO[] arr) {
arr[0] = arr[0].withX(-99);
}
void f(List<String> list) {
list.removeIf(String::isBlank);
}
void f(Map<Integer, VO> map) {
map.put(1, map.get(1).withX(-99));
}
map.get(1).withX(-99)

a training by
Don't
ever
mutate
collections!
➔ Create new ones

a training by
Why we Immutable objects
Easier to trace data changes
Can enforce validation in constructor
Safe to put in Set or Map(as keys)
Thread-safe ➔ no race bugs, since they can't be changed

a training by
All right cowboy!
Only immutable objects from now on!
usually that's too much!

a training by
Value Object vs Reference Object
class Customer {
id // PK in DB
name
phone
}
class Money {
amount
currency
}
equals(): using what fields ?
idamount, currency
final
final
Make VOs immutable!
Should Entities
be immutable?
No matter how different two instances are,
if they have the same id, it's the same Customer

a training by
instead,
Extract immutable Value Objects from them
Leaving the root Entity mutable
NO*
*there are few cases when it pays to, but those apps typically don't persist their data
Should Entities be immutable?

a training by
Entity
(mutable)
Persistent Leaf
eg. FullName
Immutable Objects in Real Life
Runtime Objects
(non-persistent data)
continuously
break XL entities
Hibernate: @Embeddable

a training by
The Big Deal

a training by
The Big Deal
Don't mutate objects on long workflows!
a(e) b(x) c(x) d(x) e(x) f(x) g(e) {
e.setField(...);
}
a(e) {
String s = b(vo);
e.setField(s);
}
b(…) c(…) d(…) e(…) f(…) g(…) {return ...;}
1) vavr.Tuple3<String,String,Integer>
2) NewConceptVO #kudos if you can find a good name!
can be pure functions
Immutable Arguments
Return the change to the surface, and apply it there
How to return changes
to multiple fields:

a training by
The Big Deal
Is when immutable objects travel lots of code

a training by
Performance of Immutability

a training by
Performance of Immutability
Measure it !
(and you might have a surprise)

a training by
Avoid Immutable Objects If
- Trashing millions of instances/second
- Cloning Lots of Lists
- Trivial logic
- Persistent Entities

a training by
Take-Aways
➢ Complex logic ➔ pure functions using immutable objects
➢ Functional Core / Imperative Shell
➢ Pull impure remote/DB calls in the shell
➢ We'll change it in there ➔ compute and return
➢ Without proper mindset, immutability can hurt
➢ Don't mutate: argument state, variables or collections
➢ Immutable: runtime data or persistent leaves
➢ We'll change it in there ➔ compute and return
And no, I'm against OOP; but not in huge logic code ➔

a training by
victorrentea@gmail.com ♦ ♦ Training: VictorRentea.ro
➢We'll change it in there ➔ compute and return

Pure Functions and Immutable Objects

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Pure Functions and Immutable Objects

Similar to Pure Functions and Immutable Objects (20)

More from Victor Rentea

More from Victor Rentea (16)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Pure Functions and Immutable Objects