-2
$\begingroup$

Are functional programming languages (such as Haskell, F#, Scala, and OCaml) memory safe like Rust? What about their embedded domain-specific languages (DSLs)?

I am not interested in discussion of programming languages that do not support functional programming with the style of Haskell, F#, Scala, and OCaml. E.g., I am not interested in C++, Python, nor Lisp-based programming languages.

I am designing DSLs for domain-specific computing, particularly for machine learning hardware acceleration and domain-specific architectures (DSAs).

Hence, I would like to embedded DSLs within functional programming languages, such as Haskell, F#, Scala, and OCaml. This is because I am exploring alternatives to embedding DSLs in Python, and would like to tap into functional programming to reduce the need for boilerplate code.

If Haskell, F#, Scala, and OCaml are memory safe programming languages, would any DSL embedded in these functional programming languages also be considered memory safe? Or, must I prove this mathematically for each DSL?

Additional contextual information provided to Dr. @Alexis King.

One of the category of DSLs that I am interested in is the set of hardware description/construction languages (HDLs/HCLs), such as Clash (based on Haskell), Chisel HDL (based on Scala), and Hardcaml (based on OCaml). Hence, I was dubious if most DSLs would be memory safe, as if memory safety are relevant for HDLs/HCLs, unless they run programs in the "host" programming language.

E.g., models of computer systems across the hardware/software stack that run Haskell code in Clash models, Scala code in Chisel HDL models, OCaml code in Hardcaml models. The reasoning for this is SystemC models can run C++ and C code, and a complete model across the hardware/software stack.

The other category of DSLs that I am interested in are (quasi-) programming languages like Mojo from Modula, TensorFlow and PyTorch for programmable machine learning hardware accelerators (or domain-specific architectures).

Thank you so much again for your wisdom and answer. I currently cannot upvote this, since I do not have enough reputation points.

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This question is similar to: What programming languages implement memory safety?. If you believe it’s different, please edit the question, make it clear how it’s different and/or how the answers on that question are not helpful for your problem. $\endgroup$ Commented May 27 at 14:37
  • $\begingroup$ Mr. @mousetail, I have updated the question to make it clear that I am limiting it to the subset of certain types of functional programming languages, and their embedded domain-specific questions. The link that you provided is for the universal set of all programming languages. $\endgroup$ Commented May 29 at 15:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
7
$\begingroup$

Yes, the languages you list are memory safe. This is not terribly surprising, as most programming languages are memory safe. To quote the linked answer:

Memory safety is not a particularly unusual property for a programming language to have. The large majority of programming languages currently in common use are memory safe (ignoring explicitly unsafe features or operations). However, what most of those languages have in common is that they are garbage collected: if the programming language manages memory on behalf of the programmer, it is much easier to prevent certain types of memory safety violations that are otherwise easy to express when memory is managed manually, such as use-after-free.

The primary innovation of Rust is not that it is memory safe per se, but that it is memory safe despite not being garbage collected. Instead of having a centralized runtime that owns all memory, Rust’s borrow checker tracks memory ownership statically, and this static analysis determines precisely when memory may be shared and when it may be freed (though note that it does not always determine when it should be freed: unlike precise, tracing garbage collectors, Rust’s ownership model does not guarantee that unreferenced memory will never leak).

Haskell, F#, Scala, and OCaml are all garbage collected, so it is no surprise that they are all memory safe.

Generally, embedded DSLs written in memory-safe languages will also be memory safe. This assumes they do not rely on any explicitly unsafe operations or somehow generate and execute memory-unsafe code at runtime, but if you are doing either of those things, it is probably immediately obvious.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you so much, Dr. @Alexis King. I appreciate this a lot. One of the category of DSLs that I am interested in are hardware description/construction languages (HDLs/HCLs), such as Clash (based on Haskell), Chisel HDL (based on Scala), and Hardcaml (based on OCaml). Hence, I was dubious if most DSLs would be memory safe, as if memory safety are relevant for HDLs/HCLs, unless they run programs in the "host" programming language. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ E.g., models of computer systems across the hardware/software stack that run Haskell code in Clash models, Scala code in Chisel HDL models, OCaml code in Hardcaml models. The reasoning for this is SystemC models can run C++ and C code, and a complete model across the hardware/software stack. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ The other category of DSLs that I am interested in are (quasi-) programming languages like Mojo from Modula, TensorFlow and PyTorch for programmable machine learning hardware accelerators (or domain-specific architectures). Thank you so much again for your wisdom and answer. I currently cannot upvote this, since I do not have enough reputation points. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19 at 16:23
  • $\begingroup$ In addition, thank you so much Dr. @Alexis King for showing others how to use Scribble, a Racket documentation tool, for typesetting. I plan to try it in due time. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19 at 16:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Giovanni I do not have a doctorate. But I’m glad you found the answer helpful. $\endgroup$ Commented May 19 at 18:40

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.