What is a variable?
A variable in an imperative language is a named memory location.
that is, in a statement like
int a = 37; //in c and c++ and Java
'a' denotes a named memory location which can hold a value. That memory location gets updated each time we assign a new value to a. That is,
if you say,
a = a+1;
a now holds the value 38.
(Note that in languages like python, variables are not typed but values are. So if you were to say a = [1, 2, 4] and later say a = 20 , the principle is still valid. That is, 'a' refers to a memory location which can be updated and accessed. The difference is: a is not constrained to hold objects of a single type.)
What does this have to do with time?
As it turns out, everything. If you do not have assignment in your programming language, your programming language becomes purely functional in nature. That is, it loses the ability to model time.
Let me illustrate that with an example from Lisp where assignment is discouraged.
computing a factorial of a number in Lisp
(define (factorial n)
(define (fact-iter fact n) ;;inner function for making the process iterative
(if (or (= n 0) (= n 1)) fact ;;return fact when n becomes zero or one
(fact-iter (* fact n) (- n 1)))) ;;recursive call
(fact-iter 1 n))
In this factorial function, we have no variables to which anything is assigned. No assignment is necessary. If you were to write the factorial function in C or its descendants, it would look something like this:
int factorial(int n)
int fact = 1;
for(int i = 1; i <=n ; i++)
fact *= i;
Notice that there is assignment in almost every statement.
What is a variable in a functional language?
In functional languages, a "variable" stands for a value. That is, you must stop thinking about a variable as a location in memory somewhere that holds a value. In fact, you must think of the variable as a "shorthand".
So instead of typing 3.14159 each time, you alias it by saying
(define Pi 3.14159)
in Lisp. There is no concept of updating the value of pi to a different value "later on". Why? because "later on" doesn't even make sense when you have no time.
It still isn't clear what I mean when I say time doesn't exist without assignment. So let me explain further: When you have assignment, you are updating a value in a memory location somewhere. So if you were to call a function with a variable as an argument, it will return a result. If you now update the variable's value and call the same function with the same variable passed in as argument, you now get a different result. That is, there are points in time when you get different results. And the reason you get different results is because you have assigned a different value. So time comes into play. There is a distinct concept of "result before assigning the new value" and "result after assigning the new value".
What happens when you get rid of assignment?
If you have no assignment, it means that variables truly are the values they alias. So, no matter how many times you call a function with a variable, you always get the same answer. If you want to get a different answer, you call the function with a different value (variable). Note that "before and after" don't exist in this scenario.
Why is time or the lack of it important?
Well, if you don't have time in your language, then the programs you write will be mathematical in nature. They will be akin to mathematical functions like f(x) = x^2 or f(x,y) = x+y which specify a distinct mapping. So they exist "timelessly" which means, there are no synchronization errors. Also, the order of substitutions don't matter. What do I mean by that? well, consider the sequence of statements:
1. i = 1;
2. j = 2;
3. j = i +1;
4. i = j + 1;
If I interchange statements 3 and 4, I get different values for i and j. So, the order of substitution matters. However, in the factorial procedure written in lisp, in the line:
(fact-iter (* fact n) (- n 1))
the order in which I substitute the value of n doesn't matter. Because n is the same throughout. If n is say, 5, the expression becomes:
(fact-iter (* fact 5) (- 5 1))
On the other hand, if you have time in your programming language, then the order of statements matters and your programs will have 'state'. As it turns out, having state in a programming language leads to some horrible things like worrying about synchronization when you have multiple threads or when you are running parallel algorithms. And you get a lot of bugs if you update the wrong variable first.
The advantage of course is that, you have the power to represent and model the time [which we observe in the real world] in your computation. There are some situations where modeling time is of immense importance: how would you model the transactions of a bank account in a purely functional language for example? The time of transactions is tied to having the correct balance.
There seem to be situations which purely functional languages cannot handle. So even though Lisp is considered a functional language, it provides an assignment operator called SET!. And Lispers are careful not to use it too often. The challenge is to retain as much functional nature as possible while admitting state into our programs.
Why did you write this post?
Nobody explained to me the consequences of having an assignment statement and how it relates to time. In fact, I had not even thought about it. Luckily, I read Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs and watched the Abelson and Sussman videos which explained what the consequences of having an assignment statement in a language were. I hope readers of this post see assignment in a new light. And I am fascinated at how a simple thing like an assignment statement in a programming language can raise questions about a deep concept we call time. Perhaps things would be different if we all existed in some timeless eternal universe...