DEV Community

What the heck is Currying anyway?

Tulsi Prasad on August 27, 2020

Hey everyone, nice to see you on my little home on internet! I'm going through some concepts which I had skipped while beginning to learn JavaScrip...

Read full post

Functional Javascript • Sep 1 '20

Good summary on the fundamentals of currying, Tulsi.

I use curried funcs (funcs that return funcs) every day.
However I do not use them for reuse sakes. i.e. to define new functions (that's too much like inheritance).

I will define a func that has two or more parameters — and who's purpose is to be used in a pipe — as a curried func (nested func).
This allows one to delay final execution until the final value for the pipe is satisfied.
So a curried func is simply a closure.

So I think in terms of making pipeable funcs, which are a more generalized design pattern than currying since it applies also to uncurried funcs that take zero or one argument.

Btw, here is an example screenshot of method chaining verses functional pipelining.
Note that the funcs in the functional pipeline may or may not be curried, but they are all pipeable funcs.

Tulsi Prasad • Sep 2 '20

Yeah, thanks for sharing a real world insight into using currying.

I've used method chaining for uncountable times however I am new to the term piping, but do understand the concept of it though. If possible, can you show a small example of how to make piping functions and how they're useful?

Functional Javascript • Sep 2 '20

Hey Tulsi,

It turned out to be a big example :), so I posted it here...
dev.to/functional_js/a-functional-...

Rudy Nappée • Aug 27 '20 • Edited

Great explanation on a not so easy concept.

However you should always put the "point" (argument on which the partial application operates in the end) in the last position :

const isType = type => obj => obj.type === type;

This way you don't need to redefine functions, just :

const isFruit = isType("Fruit");
const isVegetable = isType("Vegetable");

Or write in a straightforward way :

const fruits = items.filter(isType('fruit'));
const vegetables = items.filter(isType('Vegetable'));

Tulsi Prasad • Aug 27 '20

Thanks for the great tip! I'll add this to the blog soon! 🤗

Tulsi Prasad • Aug 28 '20

Finally got some time to update the post with this. Thanks again, for sharing!

Ken Aguilar • Aug 27 '20 • Edited

Cool post! The motivation behind currying came from lambda calculus. In lambda calculus, you can only have anonymous unary functions. That means your function can only take one parameter and there's no way of calling other functions because they're anonymous, so the only way to do it is by nesting your function calls, a.k.a currying.

Here's the identity function. It takes 1 argument and returns it.

λx.x

In pseudo javascript this looks like

(x) => x

What if we want the Kestrel/K combinator? In javascript, it can be expressed like this

(x, y) => x

But how would we do that in lambda calculus? By calling another lambda expression.

λx.(λy.x)

In javascript, this will look like

(x) => (y) => x

So, in javascript it looks like you can just have more arguments in your function. Why would you want to do currying if it's capable of taking in more than one argument? Well.. the cool thing about curried functions combined with naming them, is you can partially apply them.

const addNum = x => y => x + y
const addOne = addNum(1)
// y => 1 + y
const myNum = addOne(10)
// 11
const myNiceNum = addOne(69)
// 70

And because you're using unary functions it's easier to identify the cardinality of each function.

EDIT: Using the above example with a compose function... coz partially applied functions with composition is pretty cool

const compose = (...fns) => (arg) =>
  fns.reduceRight((acc, fn) => (fn ? fn(acc) : acc), arg)

const myNum = compose(addOne, addOne, addOne, addOne)(1)
// 5

Tulsi Prasad • Aug 28 '20 • Edited

Thanks for sharing the backstory behind currying! Now, I'll definitely keep an eye out when Lambda calculus comes up in my college. I'll have something to relate to! 💙

ssherlock • Aug 29 '20 • Edited

I'll echo that as I was struggling to understand why you would bother. Of course, lambda (something I don't yet use a lot) makes perfect sense.

Slavius • Aug 31 '20 • Edited

Woah, this looks so clean.
From the code execution and efficiency point of view it's a nightmare. Instead of using full potential of your CPU you're making it sub-optimal the least by abusing function calls.
In normal situation you'd store the parameters in available registers or push them to the heap, store the stack pointer, redirect the code by updating the instruction pointer, use generic add instruction multiple times and then call return and remove the address from stack.
With curry function you're doing this multiple times increasing nesting, filling the stack (I don't want to debug this by looking at the stack trace, must look like a mess), making the code more vulnerable to thread unsafety as there is much more room when the thread can be pre-empted.
I can't see a reason why would anyone use this in production code. I assume any good compiler would inline those function calls anyways leaving you with significantly different debug and production code which might result in weird bugs that you cannot reproduce.

Slavius • Aug 31 '20 • Edited

Normal function in IL:

IL_0000: ldarg.0      // a
IL_0001: ldarg.1      // b
IL_0002: add
IL_0003: ldarg.2      // c
IL_0004: add
IL_0005: ldarg.3      // d
IL_0006: add
IL_0007: ret

// function call
IL_0000: ldc.i4.1
IL_0001: ldc.i4.2
IL_0002: ldc.i4.3
IL_0003: ldc.i4.4
IL_0004: call  int32 CurryDemo.BenchmarkNormalVsCurry::NormalAdd(int32, int32, int32, int32)

Curry function in IL:

IL_0000: newobj  instance void CurryDemo.BenchmarkNormalVsCurry/'<>c__DisplayClass1_0'::.ctor()
IL_0005: dup
IL_0006: ldarg.0      // a
IL_0007: stfld  int32 CurryDemo.BenchmarkNormalVsCurry/'<>c__DisplayClass1_0'::a

IL_000c: ldftn  instance class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>> CurryDemo.BenchmarkNormalVsCurry/'<>c__DisplayClass1_0'::'<CurryAdd>b__0'(int32)
IL_0012: newobj  instance void class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>>>::.ctor(object, native int)
IL_0017: ret

// function call
IL_0000: ldc.i4.1
IL_0001: call         class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>>> CurryDemo.BenchmarkNormalVsCurry::CurryAdd(int32)
IL_0006: ldc.i4.2
IL_0007: callvirt     instance !1/*class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>>*/ class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>>>::Invoke(!0/*int32*/)
IL_000c: ldc.i4.3
IL_000d: callvirt     instance !1/*class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>*/ class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>>::Invoke(!0/*int32*/)
IL_0012: ldc.i4.4
IL_0013: callvirt     instance !1/*int32*/ class [System.Runtime]System.Func`2<int32, int32>::Invoke(!0/*int32*/)

Benchmark:

// * Summary *

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.1, OS=Windows 10.0.19041.450 (2004/?/20H1)
AMD Ryzen 7 3800X, 1 CPU, 16 logical and 8 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=3.1.401
  [Host]        : .NET Core 3.1.7 (CoreCLR 4.700.20.36602, CoreFX 4.700.20.37001), X64 RyuJIT
  .NET Core 3.1 : .NET Core 3.1.7 (CoreCLR 4.700.20.36602, CoreFX 4.700.20.37001), X64 RyuJIT

Job=.NET Core 3.1  Runtime=.NET Core 3.1

|        Method |       Mean |     Error |    StdDev |
|-------------- |-----------:|----------:|----------:|
| TestNormalAdd |  0.0203 ns | 0.0093 ns | 0.0083 ns |
|  TestCurryAdd | 33.1419 ns | 0.2941 ns | 0.2607 ns |

// * Hints *
Outliers
  BenchmarkNormalVsCurry.TestNormalAdd: .NET Core 3.1 -> 1 outlier  was  removed (1.57 ns)
  BenchmarkNormalVsCurry.TestCurryAdd: .NET Core 3.1  -> 1 outlier  was  removed, 2 outliers were detected (33.77 ns, 35.37 ns)

// * Legends *
  Mean   : Arithmetic mean of all measurements
  Error  : Half of 99.9% confidence interval
  StdDev : Standard deviation of all measurements
  1 ns   : 1 Nanosecond (0.000000001 sec)

// ***** BenchmarkRunner: End *****

the program:

    class Program
    {
        static void Main(string[] args)
        {
            var summary = BenchmarkRunner.Run<BenchmarkNormalVsCurry>();
        }
    }

    [SimpleJob(RuntimeMoniker.NetCoreApp31)]
    [RPlotExporter]
    public class BenchmarkNormalVsCurry
    {
        public static int NormalAdd(int a, int b, int c, int d)
        {
            return a + b + c + d;
        }

        public static Func<int, Func<int, Func<int, int>>> CurryAdd(int a) =>
            (b) =>
                (c) =>
                    (d) => a + b + c + d;

        [Benchmark]
        public void TestNormalAdd() => NormalAdd(1, 2, 3, 4);

        [Benchmark]
        public void TestCurryAdd() => CurryAdd(1)(2)(3)(4);
    }

xtofl • Sep 2 '20 • Edited

Fantastic that you emphasize this. While FP code constructs unclutter the code, without proper tool support you just move the clutter into the runtime.

Indeed, JavaScript (nor C#) was never designed to go full throttle on functional programming concepts. Therefor the JIT compiler doesn't optimize any of it.

Languages like Haskell, F#, Erlang, Lisp, are built for this, and will handle it in a better way.

Tulsi Prasad • Sep 2 '20 • Edited

Thanks man, for putting this out here!

I'm definitely interested to know what happens behind all the functions and about compilation. However, I'm not quite experienced at it, but hopefully this will be helpful to others and even me in future.

Mike Schinkel • Sep 2 '20

Am I misunderstanding, or are the 2nd console.log() calls in your curryMultiply examples incorrect? Shouldn't they be calling curryMultiply() instead of multiply()?

Tulsi Prasad • Sep 2 '20

You're very right, it was a mistake from my side of not cross checking the code on an editor. Don't know how I missed that.

Thanks a lot, I've updated it now. 😀

Mike Schinkel • Sep 2 '20 • Edited

Great. However, were you supposed to update the first console.log()? Unless I misunderstand, the first one should just call multiply().

Tulsi Prasad • Sep 2 '20

I did it to show that we can also use curryMultiply in the way we normally should have used multiply function. Also, I felt it was kinda obvious that multiply(2, 4) will always return 8 as its just a normal function.

Mike Schinkel • Sep 2 '20

You can call curryMultiply() with two parameters and it will pass them all? I thought it only worked with one parameter (I have a lot more experience with PHP and Go than with Javascript, so I do not know how JS works well enough.)

If it can be used that way then can you please explain that in comments in the code snippet or elsewhere in the article to clarify for others who assume the same as me because that was not at all clear to me when reading?

Tulsi Prasad • Sep 2 '20 • Edited

Oops I got caught up in college stuff, apologies!

For now you can fiddle around with this repl to understand how it works! If possible, I'll add a line about this on the blog tomorrow. 🤞 Link to repl

The actual thing is as these two lines of code exist in our custom curry function:

  if (args.length >= func.length) {
      return func.apply(undefined, args);

We check if we already have got enough arguments that are necessary for the function to execute (or arity of that function), as in this case curryMultiply(2, 4). If this condition holds true, we apply (or invoke) the function right away instead of awaiting for another argument like we do for cases like curryMultiply(2)(4)

which is when the else block of the code executes

} else {
      return function (...rest) {
        return curried.apply(undefined, rest.concat(args));
      };

Mike Schinkel • Sep 3 '20

Thanks for the detailed reply and REPL.

P.S. RE: "College stuff"; I don't envy you! I did my time years ago and thinking about it still gives me PTSD! :-D

Sean • Aug 27 '20

Nice, didn't know that that technique was called currying. 😄

Tulsi Prasad • Aug 27 '20

Yeah me too, I remember using them with Thunk and Connect functions with Redux, but never thought there'd be a name for this. 😜

Juan F Gonzalez • Aug 27 '20

Is either this or this that's the curry

Tulsi Prasad • Aug 27 '20 • Edited

I only had this curry in mind though! 😜