# Common Algorithms

This blog post is an excerpt from my book, Programming with Types. The code samples are in TypeScript. If you enjoy the article, you can use the discount code vlri40 for a 40% discount on the book.

## A Few Common Algorithms

There are many algorithms commonly used to process a sequence of data. Let’s list a few of them. We will not look at the implementation, just describe what arguments besides the iterable they expect and how they process the data. We’ll also mention some synonyms under which the algorithm might appear.

• map() takes a sequence of T values, a function (value: T) => U and returns a sequence of U values applying the function to all the elements in the sequence. It is also known as fmap(), select().
• filter() takes a sequence of T values, a predicate (value: T) => boolean and returns a sequence of T values containing all the items for which the predicate returns true. It is also known as where().
• reduce() takes a sequence of T values, an initial value of type T, and an operation which combines two T values into one (x: T, y: T) => T. It returns a single value T after combining all the elements in the sequence using the operation. It is also known as fold(), collect(), accumulate(), aggregate().
• any() takes a sequence of T values and a predicate (value: T) => boolean. It returns true if any one of the elements of the sequence satisfies the predicate.
• all() takes a sequence of T values and a predicate (value: T) => boolean. It returns true if all of the elements of the sequence satisfy the predicate.
• none() takes a sequence of T values and a predicate (value: T) => boolean. It returns true if none of the elements of the sequence satisfy the predicate.
• take() takes a sequence of T values and a number n. It returns a sequence consisting of the first n elements of the original sequence. It is also known as limit().
• drop() takes a sequence of T values and a number n. It returns a sequence consisting of all the elements of the original sequence except the first n. The first n elements are dropped. It is also known as skip().
• zip() takes a sequence of T values and a sequence of U values. It returns a sequence containing pairs of T and U values, effectively “zipping” together the two sequences.

There are many more algorithms for sorting, reversing, splitting and concatenating sequences. The good news is that, because these algorithms are so useful and generally applicable, we don’t need to implement them. Most languages have libraries which provide these algorithms and more. For JavaScript, there is the underscore.js package and the lodash package, both providing a plethora of such algorithms (at the time of writing, these libraries don’t support iterators, only the JavaScript built-in array and object types). In Java, they are found in the java.util.stream package. In C# they are in the System.Linq namespace. In C++ they are found in the <algorithm> standard library header.

## Algorithms Instead of Loops

While you might be surprised, a good rule of thumb is to check, whenever you find yourself writing a loop, whether there is a library algorithm or a pipeline that can do the job. Usually we write loops to process a sequence – exactly what the algorithms we talked about do.

The reason to prefer library algorithms to custom code in loops is that there is less opportunity for mistakes: library algorithms are tried and tested, implemented efficiently, and the code we end up with is easier to understand as the operations are spelled out.

## Implementing a Fluent Pipeline

Most libraries also provide a fluent API to chain algorithms together into a pipeline. Fluent APIs are APIs based on method chaining, making the code much easier to read. To see the difference between a fluent and a non-fluent API, let’s take a look at a simple filter/reduce pipeline.

Let’s start with a simple implementation of the two algorithms. To implement filter() we can use a generator. We take an Itreable<T> as the input sequence and a predicate from T to boolean, and return another sequence as an IterableIterator<T>. ItreableIterator is the return type of all generators in TypeScript. The function will simply traverse the sequence and for each element, if the predicate returns true, yield the element to the caller:

function *filter<T>(
items: Iterable<T>,
pred: (x: T) => boolean)
:IterableIterator<T> {
for (const item of items) {
if (pred(item)) {
yield item;
}
}
}


reduce() takes an Iterable<T> as the input sequence and an initial value of type T. It also takes a function (T, T) => T which combines (reduces) two values of type T into one. This function iterates over the sequence and reduces all the elements to a single value, which it returns:

function reduce<T>(
items: Iterable<T>,
init: T,
op: (x: T, y: T) => T)
: T {
let result: T = init;

for (const item of items) {
result = op(result, item);
}

return result;
}


Now let’s look at how we could combine these algorithms into a pipeline which sums up all even values of an array. We will pass the array to filter() first, with a predicate which returns true for even numbers. Next, we will reduce the resulting sequence using an initial value of 0 and the function (x, y) => x + y:

const sequence: number[] = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

const result: number =
reduce(
filter(
sequence,
(value) => value % 2 == 0),
0,
(x, y) => x + y);

console.log(result);


Even though we apply filter() first, then pass the result to reduce(), if we read the code from left to right, we see reduce() before filter(). It’s also a bit hard to make sense of which arguments go with which function in the pipeline. Fluent APIs make the code much easier to read. Currently, all our algorithms take an iterable as the first argument and return an iterable. We can use object-oriented programming to improve our API. We can put all our algorithms into a class which wraps an iterable. Then we can call any of them without explicitly providing an iterable as the first argument – the iterable is a member of the class. Let’s do this for map(), filter(), and reduce(), by grouping them into a new FluentIterable<T> class wrapping an iterable:

class FluentIterable<T> {
iter: Iterable<T>;

constructor(iter: Iterable<T>) {
this.iter = iter;
}

*map<U>(func: (item: T) => U)
: IterableIterator<U> {
for (const value of this.iter) {
yield func(value);
}
}

*filter(pred: (item: T) => boolean)
: IterableIterator<T> {
for (const value of this.iter) {
if (pred(value)) {
yield value;
}
}
}

reduce(init: T, op: (x: T, y: T) => T)
: T {
let result: T = init;

for (const value of this.iter) {
result = op(result, value);
}

return result;
}
}


We can create a FluentIterable<T> out of an Iterable<T>, so we can rewrite our filter/reduce pipeline into a more fluent form. We create a FluentIterable<T>, call filter() on it, then we create a new FluentIterable<T> out of its result, and call reduce() on it:

const sequence: number[] = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

const result: number =
new FluentIterable(
new FluentIterable(
sequence
).filter((value) => value % 2 == 0)
).reduce(0, (x, y) => x + y);

console.log(result);


Now filter() appears before reduce(), and it’s very clear which arguments go to which function. The only problem is we need to create a new FluentIterable<T> after each function call. We can improve our API by having our map() and filter() functions return a FluentIterable<T> instead of the default IterableIterator<T>. Note we don’t need to change reduce(), because reduce() returns a single value of type T, not an iterable.

Since we’re using generators, we can’t simply change the return type. Generators exist to provide convenient syntax for functions, but they always return an IterableIterator<T>. What we can do instead is to move the implementations to a couple of private methods, mapImpl() and filterImpl(), and handle the conversion from IterableIterator<T> to FluentIterable<T> in the public map() and reduce() methods:

class FluentIterable<T> {
iter: Iterable<T>;

constructor(iter: Iterable<T>) {
this.iter = iter;
}

map<U>(func: (item: T) => U)
: FluentIterable<U> {
return new FluentIterable(this.mapImpl(func));
}

private *mapImpl<U>(func: (item: T) => U)
: IterableIterator<U> {
for (const value of this.iter) {
yield func(value);
}
}

filter<U>(pred: (item: T) => boolean)
: FluentIterable<T> {
return new FluentIterable(this.filterImpl(pred));
}

private *filterImpl(pred: (item: T) => boolean)
: IterableIterator<T> {
for (const value of this.iter) {
if (pred(value)) {
yield value;
}
}
}

reduce(init: T, op: (x: T, y: T) => T)
: T {
let result: T = init;

for (const value of this.iter) {
result = op(result, value);
}

return result;
}
}


With this updated implementation, we can more easily chain the algorithms, as each returns a FluentIterable, which contains all the algorithms as methods:

const sequence: number[] = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6];

const result: number =
new FluentIterable(sequence)
.filter((value) => value % 2 == 0)
.reduce(0, (x, y) => x + y);

console.log(result);


Now, in true fluent fashion, the code reads easily from left to right and we can chain any number of algorithms that make up our pipeline with a very natural syntax. Most algorithm libraries take a similar approach, making it as easy as possible to chain multiple algorithms together.

Depending on the programming language, one downside of a fluent API approach is that our FluentIterable ends up containing all the algorithms, so it is difficult to extend - if it is part of a library, calling code can’t easily add a new algorithm without modifying the class. C# provides extension methods, which enable us to add methods to a class or interface without modifying its code. Not all languages have such features though. That being said, in most situations you should be using an existing algorithm library, not implementing a new one from scratch.