Interactive code snippets not yet available for SoH 2.0, see our Status of of School of Haskell 2.0 blog post

3. Pure Functions, Laziness, I/O, and Monads

Haskell is the world’s finest imperative programming language.
- Simon Peyton Jones

Pure Functions

Unlike in imperative languages, a function in Haskell is really a function, just as mathematicians intended it to be. To distinguish it from cheap imitations, Haskell functions are sometimes called pure functions. Here are the fundamental properties of a pure function:

  1. A function returns exactly the same result every time it's called with the same set of arguments. In other words a function has no state, nor can it access any external state. Every time you call it, it behaves like a newborn baby with blank memory and no knowledge of the external world.
  2. A function has no side effects. Calling a function once is the same as calling it twice and discarding the result of the first call. In fact if you discard the result of any function call, Haskell will spare itself the trouble and will never call the function. No wonder Haskell has a reputation for laziness (more about it later).

One of the major strengths of Haskell is that the execution of pure functions can be easily parallelized because they have no side effects. With no side effects there are no data races -- the bane of parallel programming.

However, an astute reader might at this point start doubting the sanity of programming in Haskell. How can a program built from pure functions do anything useful other than heat up the processor during cold winters in Siberia?

Simple I/O

And yet, even the simplest program in Haskell does more than stir electrons in a CPU.

main = putStrLn "Hello World!"

Run this code and you'll see that it miraculously makes text appear on your screen. A pure function can't do that -- it cannot have side effects!

So what's happening here? Haskell runtime evaluates main (it's really just an expression). The trick is that main evaluates not to a simple value but to an action. The runtime then executes this action.

So the program itself has no side effects, but the action does. And this so called IO action is invoked after the Haskell program has run, so we don't break the functional nature of the program. At least that's the conceptual model -- things are a little more complicated because of Haskell's laziness (see later).

Does main have to produce an IO action? Yes, it's part of the contract. But just for some cheap thrills, try making something that's not an action, like in this example:

main = True

Don't worry about the verbosity of the compiler error message. Just notice that it contains the symbol IO.

So how did the examples in my previous tutorials work? I always made sure that main called functions like putStrLn or print, which return IO actions. These function are, in turn, built from simpler functions also returning IO actions. If you follow this chain, you'll find that there is only one non-trivial source of IO actions: primitives built into the language. As you'll see later, you can also trivially convert any value into an IO action using return.

However you can never execute an IO action inside the program -- there just isn't a function that can do it. Once created, an IO action keeps percolating up until it ends up in main and is executed by the runtime. (You can also discard an IO action, but that means it will never be evaluated.)


Haskell takes laziness seriously. No, it doesn't spend most of its time sitting on a couch and munching potato chips. But it will not calculate anything unless it's strictly necessary (or is forced by the programmer -- there's the way to do it). Haskell is so lazy that it won't even evaluate arguments to a function before calling it. Unless proven otherwise, Haskell assumes that the arguments will not be used by the function, so it procrastinates as long as possible.

Let me demonstrate Haskell's laziness through a simple example. There are some expressions that, when evaluated, lead to a runtime error -- definitely not as many as in other languages but still, there are some. Division by zero comes to mind. There is also a built in object that, by definition, can never be evaluated. It's called undefined. It's sort of like trying to dereference null in Java. Try running this program:

main = print $ undefined + 1

Notice that the compiler doesn't complain that you're trying to add undefined to 1. I'll explain this leniency later. The error you're seeing is a runtime error resulting from an attempt to evaluate undefined. But try this instead:

foo x = 1
main = print $ (foo undefined) + 1

Here, Haskell calls foo but never evaluates its argument undefined. You might think that it's an optimization: The compiler sees the definition of foo and figures out that foo discards its argument. But the result is the same if the definition of foo is hidden from view in another module. We haven't talked about modules yet, but just to make this point, here's the same example split between two files:

{-# START_FILE Foo.hs #-}
-- show
module Foo (foo) where
foo x = 1
{-# START_FILE Main.hs #-}
-- show
import Foo
main = print $ (foo undefined) + 1

Later you'll see that Haskell's laziness allows it to deal with infinity: for instance, with infinite list, or with the future that hasn't materialized yet.

Laziness or not, a program needs to be executed at some point.

So what makes a program run? There are several reasons why an expression would have to be evaluated -- the fundamental one being that somebody wants to display its result. So, really, without I/O nothing would ever be evaluated in Haskell.


Larger IO actions are built from smaller IO actions. The composition of IO actions has one very important property: The order of composition matters. It matters whether you first print "Hello" and then "World" or the other way around. In the world of pure functions and lazy evaluation this is a non-trivial requirement.

You have to be able to sequence IO actions.

Haskell has special syntax for sequencing. It's called the do notation. Here's a simple example:

main = do
    putStrLn "The answer is: "
    print 43

Here we are sequencing two IO actions, one returned by putStrLn and another returned by print. We do this by putting them inside a do block. The block is constructed using line breaks and proper indentation. In C-like languages blocks are usually delimited by braces and statements are separated by semicolons. In fact, you can do the same in Haskell, although such notation is rarely used:

main = do {
    putStrLn "The answer is: ";
    print 43

The "input" part of the I/O is also easy. Just like in imperative programming, whatever you receive from the user or from a file you assign to a variable and use it later. Like this (enter a line of text and press enter when you run this program):

main = do 
    str <- getLine
    putStrLn str

Although this works as expected, str is not really a variable, and the assignment is not really an assignment. Remember, Haskell is a functional language. The line:

    str <- getLine

creates an action that, when executed will take the input from the user. It will then pass this input to the rest of the do block (which is also an action) under the name str when it (the rest) is executed. In Haskell you never assign to a variable, instead you bind a name to a value. When the action produced by the do block is executed, it binds the name str to the value returned by executing the action that was produced by getLine.

You can safely ignore what I just said and imagine that an assignment is possible inside a do block. It won't hurt you. But I just want you to know that, unlike in other functional languages, I/O in Haskell is not a hack that breaks the pure functional nature.

In fact the do block is not a special hack that only works for IO actions. Far from that, do blocks are used for sequencing a more general set of monadic operations. IO is just one example of a monad, but I will show you many more. You'll have to wait for the formal definition of a monad because it requires the understanding of a few more advanced features of Haskell.

Unlike "object" in object-oriented programming, the "monad" of functional programming is not a word from common vocabulary, and there is no simple intuition that would elicit the aha! from a casual programmer. You need to see quite a few examples before you develop your own intuition. The closest I can describe the idea of a monad is that it has an imperative feel.

Monadic do blocks really look like chunks of imperative code. They also behave like imperative code: You can think of lines of code in the do block as statements that are executed one after another. This similarity is no coincidence -- all imperative programming is at its core monadic. An imperative programmer learning Haskell might be as shocked as Molière's Bourgeois Gentleman upon discovering that all his life he'd been speaking prose. In Haskell this "imperative prose" is implemented using "functional poetry."

The way the actions are glued together is the essence of the Monad. Since the glueing happens between the lines, the Monad is sometimes described as an "overloading of the semicolon." Different monads overload it differently.


  1. Define a function putStrLn' using putStr and putChar; the latter to output the newline, '\n'. (Replace undefined with actual code).

    putStrLn' str = undefined
    main = do
        putStrLn' "First line"
        putStrLn' "Second line"
  2. Define a function putQStrLn that outputs a string surrounded by quotes, '"'

    putQStrLn str = undefined
    main = putQStrLn "You can quote me."
  3. Rewrite the previous exercise to take the input string from the user.


  1. Simon Peyton-Jones, Tackling the Awkward Squad: monadic input/output, concurrency, exceptions, and foreign-language calls in Haskell
  2. Eugenio Moggi, Notions of computation and monads.
comments powered by Disqus