Don't abbreviate rare names

Some languages are too consistent about keeping their names short. Arc and Wart call their macro-defining operators mac instead of defmacro or define-macro.

I understand how a designer could see mac as an important operator. If you think of macros as a central, distinctive feature of your language, and if you use quite a few of them to bootstrap your standard library, they feel important enough to deserve a short name.

mac does almost nothing for the length of programs, though. Macro definitions, however fundamental, aren't common enough for it to matter. define-macro is short enough. I prefer defmacro, but only because it follows a naming convention that makes other, more common names shorter; it's not common enough itself to justify an irregularly short name.

Save the aggressive abbreviation for common operations like make-hash-table. Giving that a one-word name (or even {}) makes more difference.

It's a normative theory.

When a theory fails to usefully describe reality, one bad response is to demand that reality stop disobeying it. Cosma Shalizi illustrates:

A: Hey, you over there, the one walking! You're doing it wrong.
B: Excuse me?
A: You're only using two feet! You should keep at least three of your six in contact with the ground at all times.
B: ...
A: Look, it's easily proved that's the optimal way to walk. Otherwise you'd be unstable, and if you were walking past a Dutchman he could kick one of your legs with his clogs and knock you over and then lecture you on how to make pancakes.
B: What? Why a Dutchman?
A: You can't trust the Dutch, they're everywhere! Besides, every time you walk it's really just like running the gauntlet at Schiphol.
B: It is?
A: Don't change the subject! Walking like that you're actually sessile!
B: I don't seem to be rooted in place...
A: It's a technical term. Look, it's very simple, these are all implications of the axioms of the theory of optimal walking and you're breaking them all. I can't get over how immobile you are, walking like that.
B: "Immobile"?
A: Well, you're not walking properly, are you?
B: Your theory seems to assume I have six legs.
A: Yes, exactly!
B: I only have two legs. It doesn't describe what I do at all.
A: It's a normative theory.
B: For something with six legs.
A: Yes.
B: I have two legs. Does your theory have any advice about how to walk on two legs?
A: Could you try crawling on your hands and knees?

Cosma is thinking of Bayesian statistics, but I sometimes feel the same way about type theory.

In both cases the problem is not with the theory, but with the movement that insists that the theory should be used for everything, whether it works or not.

Many happy returns

Some languages can return multiple values from a function, just as they can pass multiple arguments to a function. I used to think this was an important language feature. Functions that return more than one result are common, after all, so every language has a way to express them — by returning structures, or side-effecting reference parameters, or CPS — or, instead of these workarounds, by supporting multiple return values directly. It complicates the language kernel a little, but it makes code cleaner, right?

No, it doesn't. There are several reasons for a function to return multiple values. None of them require direct language support, and for most of them, it's not even helpful.

Secondary values

Some functions return one useful value, plus some secondary values that aren't interesting to most callers. For instance, Common Lisp's two-argument floor returns a quotient and a remainder, but usually you just want the quotient. This is where built-in multiple values shine: they can automatically ignore the extra value, so the common case Just Works, with no effort from either the caller or the multivalued function.

CL-USER> (format nil "π is about ~S" (floor 355 113))
"π is about 3"
CL-USER> (floor 355 113)

Returning and destructuring a tuple doesn't handle secondary values well. When the caller wants all the values, it's fine (and equivalent to built-in multiple values), but in the more common case where the caller wants only the primary value, it forces them to explicitly extract one component. This can often be done with a convenience function like left (l, r) = l, but it still adds noise.

If your language supports overloading on return type, you can make the function return either the primary value or the structure — whichever the caller wants. This is a rare and difficult feature, though.

Returning secondary values by side effect works surprisingly well. If the caller doesn't want the secondary values, it's no trouble, since the arguments to which to write them can be optional. When the caller does want them, it requires binding a variable, which typically forces the expression into a block, which is occasionally a problem for functional code. It's not very verbose, though:

int floor(int a, int b, int *remainder = NULL);

int remainder;
int quotient = floor(a, b, &remainder);

Now for my favorite: continuation-passing style. It has a bad reputation because it's associated with total CPS transformation, in which every continuation becomes an explicit lambda, which is onerous and unreadable. That is indeed bad. If you pass explicit continuations only where needed, however, it's no worse than other uses of λ.

CPS provides a way to handle secondary values at least as well as built-in multiple values do, but without language support. With no explicit continuation, the function returns the primary value, but if a continuation is provided, it receives all the values:

imaginary-lisp> (floor 355 113)
imaginary-lisp> (floor 355 113 (λ (quot rem) rem))

Success and failure

Often a secondary value encodes success or failure, as in Common Lisp's gethash, read, or macroexpand-1, or any of the many Go functions that return an error as their second value. This means callers who don't care about errors can simply ignore the extra value, while those who do can still get it.

(multiple-value-bind (val present?) (gethash vars varname)
  (if present? val (error "Unbound variable: ~S" varname)))

file, err := os.Open("/some/path")
if err != nil {

Returning a structure + pattern matching handles this cleanly and safely: you simply return a different structure for each continuation. Usually this is something like Haskell's Maybe or Either:

case (Data.Map.Strict.lookup vars varname) of
  Nothing → error "Unbound variable: ~S" varname
  Just val → val

case foo of
  Left err → error err
  Right x → x

This can be a little verbose, but the verbosity can sometimes be eliminated by operators that automatically propagate the failure case, such as Haskell's various monad operators.

CPS has an even cleaner way to handle this: success and failure are two different continuations, so the function can simply take an optional continuation for handling errors, or two explicit continuations (of which the success continuation is often the identity function):

(slurp filename
  (fn (err) (error "Unable to open ~S: ~S" filename err)))

(gethash vars varname i (fn () (error "Unbound variable")))

This multiple-continuation style is often used in Smalltalk, where it's particularly convenient because of Smalltalk's terse lambdas. Toward Leakage Containment (Julia Lawall and Dan Friedman, 1992) recommended it for Scheme, but got little attention, perhaps because it used the nonsensical name “continuation-constructing style” (and didn't mention it in the title). I call it multi-CPS and find it very convenient — often more so than catching exceptions.

Complex returns

Some functions really do have multiple values to return — sometimes lots of them, like Common Lisp's get-setf-expansion, with five values, or get-decoded-time, with nine. These functions tend to be awkward to use regardless of how you receive the return values, but the least awkward way is to return a structure, because then at least you're not forced to name each result individually. That's why most languages do this for times:

time_t now = time(NULL);
tm *decoded = localtime(&now);
printf("The year is %d.\n", tm.tm_year + 1900);

This is less painful than Common Lisp's multiple-return-value approach, which often forces you to bind more values than you care about:

(multiple-value-bind (sec min hour day month year)
  (format t "The year is ~S.~%" year))

setf expanders are a similarly complex result that ought to be a structure.

(multiple-value-bind (temps forms svars writeform readform)
                     (get-setf-expansion x e)

Simpler cases, like partitioning a collection, are adequately handled by tuples (if you have destructuring) or CPS (if you don't).

Why so much trouble?

Expression languages get much of their elegance by encoding dataflow in program structure. Each expression has one parent, and can therefore easily specify what to do with one return value. When there is more than one, there's not enough room in the structure to express what to do with each value, so we have to specify it in some more other way.

I still think multiple return values are important, but I no longer think they require special language support. There are plenty of good alternatives, and improving a language's support for those alternatives (by e.g. optimizing destructuring or λ) is easier than complicating the core semantics, and more likely to be useful for other purposes.