Community hub
Recent from talks
Contribute something
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Side effect (computer science)
View on Wikipedia
In computer science, an operation, function or expression is said to have a side effect if it has any observable effect other than its primary effect of reading the value of its arguments and returning a value to the invoker of the operation. Example side effects include modifying a non-local variable, a static local variable or a mutable argument passed by reference; raising errors or exceptions; performing I/O; or calling other functions with side-effects.[1] In the presence of side effects, a program's behaviour may depend on history; that is, the order of evaluation matters. Understanding and debugging a function with side effects requires knowledge about the context and its possible histories.[2][3] Side effects play an important role in the design and analysis of programming languages. The degree to which side effects are used depends on the programming paradigm. For example, imperative programming is commonly used to produce side effects, to update a system's state. By contrast, declarative programming is commonly used to report on the state of system, without side effects.
Functional programming aims to minimize or eliminate side effects. The lack of side effects makes it easier to do formal verification of a program. The functional language Haskell eliminates side effects such as I/O and other stateful computations by replacing them with monadic actions.[4][5] Functional languages such as Standard ML, Scheme and Scala do not restrict side effects, but it is customary for programmers to avoid them.[6]
Effect systems extend types to keep track of effects, permitting concise notation for functions with effects, while maintaining information about the extent and nature of side effects. In particular, functions without effects correspond to pure functions.
Assembly language programmers must be aware of hidden side effects—instructions that modify parts of the processor state which are not mentioned in the instruction's mnemonic. A classic example of a hidden side effect is an arithmetic instruction that implicitly modifies condition codes (a hidden side effect) while it explicitly modifies a register (the intended effect). One potential drawback of an instruction set with hidden side effects is that, if many instructions have side effects on a single piece of state, like condition codes, then the logic required to update that state sequentially may become a performance bottleneck. The problem is particularly acute on some processors designed with pipelining (since 1990) or with out-of-order execution. Such a processor may require additional control circuitry to detect hidden side effects and stall the pipeline if the next instruction depends on the results of those effects.
Referential transparency
[edit]Absence of side effects is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition for referential transparency. Referential transparency means that an expression (such as a function call) can be replaced with its value. This requires that the expression is pure, that is to say the expression must be deterministic (always give the same value for the same input) and side-effect free.
Temporal side effects
[edit]Side effects caused by the time taken for an operation to execute are usually ignored when discussing side effects and referential transparency. There are some cases, such as with hardware timing or testing, where operations are inserted specifically for their temporal side effects e.g. sleep(5000) or for (int i = 0; i < 10000; ++i) {}. These instructions do not change state other than taking an amount of time to complete.
Idempotence
[edit]A subroutine with side effects is idempotent if multiple applications of the subroutine have the same effect on the system state as a single application, in other words if the function from the system state space to itself associated with the subroutine is idempotent in the mathematical sense. For instance, consider the following Python program:
x = 0
def setx(n):
global x
x = n
setx(3)
assert x == 3
setx(3)
assert x == 3
setx is idempotent because the second application of setx to 3 has the same effect on the system state as the first application: x was already set to 3 after the first application, and it is still set to 3 after the second application.
A pure function is idempotent if it is idempotent in the mathematical sense. For instance, consider the following Python program:
def abs(n):
return -n if n < 0 else n
assert abs(abs(-3)) == abs(-3)
abs is idempotent because the second application of abs to the return value of the first application to -3 returns the same value as the first application to -3.
Example
[edit]One common demonstration of side effect behavior is that of the assignment operator in C. The assignment a = b is an expression that evaluates to the same value as the expression b, with the side effect of storing the R-value of b into the L-value of a. This allows multiple assignment:
a = (b = 3); // b = 3 evaluates to 3, which then gets assigned to a
Because the operator right associates, this is equivalent to
a = b = 3;
This presents a potential hangup for novice programmers who may confuse
while (b == 3) {} // tests if b evaluates to 3
with
while (b = 3) {} // b = 3 evaluates to 3, which then casts to true so the loop is infinite
See also
[edit]References
[edit]- ^ Spuler, David A.; Sajeev, A. Sayed Muhammed (January 1994). Compiler Detection of Function Call Side Effects. James Cook University. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.70.2096.
The term Side effect refers to the modification of the nonlocal environment. Generally this happens when a function (or a procedure) modifies a global variable or arguments passed by reference parameters. But here are other ways in which the nonlocal environment can be modified. We consider the following causes of side effects through a function call: 1. Performing I/O. 2. Modifying global variables. 3. Modifying local permanent variables (like static variables in C). 4. Modifying an argument passed by reference. 5. Modifying a local variable, either automatic or static, of a function higher up in the function call sequence (usually via a pointer).
- ^ Turner, David A., ed. (1990). Research Topics in Functional Programming. Addison-Wesley. pp. 17–42. Via Hughes, John. "Why Functional Programming Matters" (PDF). Archived (PDF) from the original on 2022-06-14. Retrieved 2022-08-06.
- ^ Collberg, Christian S. (2005-04-22). "CSc 520 Principles of Programming Languages". Department of Computer Science, University of Arizona. Archived from the original on 2022-08-06. Retrieved 2022-08-06.
- ^ "Haskell 98 report". 1998.
- ^ Jones, Simon Peyton; Wadler, Phil (1993). Imperative Functional Programming. Conference Record of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages. pp. 71–84.
- ^ Felleisen, Matthias; Findler, Robert Bruce; Flatt, Matthew; Krishnamurthi, Shriram (2014-08-01). "How To Design Programs" (2 ed.). MIT Press.
| Key concepts |  | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Semantics |
| ||||||||||||||
| Analyses |
| ||||||||||||||
| Formal methods |
| ||||||||||||||
Side effect (computer science)
View on Grokipediaprint function that displays text while returning a dummy value), or reading user input, which captures external data into the program's state.[1] In languages like C or Java, operations such as array modifications or exception throwing exemplify side effects, as they persist beyond the immediate execution context and can influence subsequent code.[2] These effects enable practical applications, such as user interfaces or data persistence, but they introduce challenges like non-determinism—where the same inputs may yield varying outputs due to timing or concurrent modifications—and complicate program verification.[4]
The presence of side effects has profound implications for software design and analysis. In functional programming paradigms, avoiding side effects promotes referential transparency, allowing functions to be substituted with their outputs without changing program behavior, which simplifies reasoning, testing, and parallelization.[3] Conversely, imperative languages rely on side effects for efficiency, such as in-place updates that reduce memory usage or execution time compared to creating immutable copies.[4] However, excessive side effects can lead to bugs from unintended interactions, motivating techniques like type and effect systems to statically track and restrict them during compilation.[5] Modern languages often blend paradigms, providing controlled side effects (e.g., via monads in Haskell) to balance expressiveness and safety.[6]
Fundamentals
Definition
In computer science, a side effect occurs when an operation, function, or expression modifies a state variable or produces an observable interaction outside its local environment, such as altering global variables, performing input/output operations, or interacting with hardware.[7] This contrasts with pure computations, where functions consistently yield the same output for identical inputs without modifying or relying on external state.[8] The concept of side effects gained prominence in the 1960s during discussions on early imperative programming languages like ALGOL 60, where features such as assignments and I/O were integral, prompting debates on their implications for program semantics; Fortran (1957) and later C (1972) further embedded such operations in mainstream use.[9] Common categories include assignments to non-local variables, input/output operations, raising exceptions, and display actions like printing.[7] Formally, in the context of lambda calculus, side effects violate substitution invariance, meaning an expression cannot be freely replaced by its value without changing the program's observable behavior.[8] Referential transparency, the absence of side effects, ensures such substitutions preserve program meaning.[10]Referential Transparency
Referential transparency is a property of expressions in programming languages where substituting an expression with its computed value does not alter the behavior or meaning of the larger program containing it. This substitution principle, rooted in the idea that the value of an expression is independent of its context or evaluation order, ensures that the program's semantics remain consistent under such replacements. Formally, an expression satisfies referential transparency if, for any context in which it appears, replacing it (or any subexpression) with an equivalent value preserves the overall program's observable behavior, embodying the substitution property of equality. This criterion aligns closely with the concept of purity in functions, where referentially transparent expressions correspond to pure functions that produce deterministic outputs solely based on their inputs, without observable side effects. Side effects, such as modifications to external state, primarily violate this property by introducing dependencies on evaluation context or timing. The benefits of referential transparency include facilitating compiler optimizations, such as common subexpression elimination—where duplicate computations are replaced by a single evaluation—and memoization, which caches results for reuse without recomputation.[11] It also supports equational reasoning, allowing programmers to verify program properties through algebraic manipulation rather than step-by-step simulation, thereby enhancing reliability in functional programming paradigms. Idempotence, while related in guaranteeing repeatable results, differs by focusing on behavioral consistency under re-execution rather than substitution invariance. The term was coined by Christopher Strachey in his 1967 lecture notes on fundamental concepts in programming languages, drawing from philosophical notions of substitutivity in logic.[12] It has since become central to the design of purely functional languages like Haskell and certain Lisp variants, where enforcing this property at the language level promotes composable and predictable code. To test for referential transparency, one can verify the absence of external mutations by isolating the expression and confirming that multiple evaluations with identical inputs yield identical outputs, while also checking for determinism against sources of non-determinism such as random number generation or I/O operations.Types
Temporal Side Effects
Temporal side effects arise when the outcome of an operation varies based on the timing or sequence of other operations, often due to interactions with shared state in concurrent environments. These effects manifest primarily as race conditions, where the final program state depends on the unpredictable interleaving of thread executions, leading to inconsistent or erroneous results.[13] Key manifestations include order-dependent mutations, such as multiple threads incrementing a shared counter without proper synchronization, where the counter's value may be lost if updates overlap in time.[14] In practice, non-atomic operations in concurrent programming, like unsynchronized reads and writes to shared variables in multithreaded applications, exemplify these issues, potentially causing data corruption or unexpected behavior.[13] To mitigate temporal side effects, programmers employ synchronization mechanisms such as locks to enforce mutual exclusion, ensuring that only one thread accesses shared state at a time. Atomic operations provide indivisible updates to variables, preventing interleaving during critical sections, while transactional memory allows groups of operations to execute as a single atomic unit, rolling back on conflicts to maintain consistency.[15] These strategies aim to impose predictable ordering on executions. Temporal side effects introduce non-determinism into programs, as the same input can produce varying outputs based on scheduling, which complicates debugging and formal verification by requiring exhaustive exploration of possible interleavings.[16] Mutable state commonly enables these effects, rendering operations incompatible with referential transparency, where expression evaluation should yield consistent results regardless of context.Mutable State Side Effects
Mutable state side effects occur when a computation modifies shared data structures, such as arrays or objects, in a way that affects variables or memory locations outside the local scope of the operation.[17] These modifications persist beyond the execution of the function or expression, altering the observable behavior of the program in subsequent computations.[18] Unlike pure functions that produce only a value without changing external state, operations with mutable state side effects violate referential transparency by making the outcome dependent on prior mutations.[19] Key forms of mutable state side effects include in-place modifications to data structures, where an operation directly alters the contents without creating a new copy. For instance, appending an element to a list in languages like Python modifies the original list object rather than returning a new one.[20] In lower-level languages such as C, pointer aliasing enables side effects through multiple pointers referencing the same memory location, allowing unintended changes via one pointer to propagate to others.[21] In object-oriented programming, methods that change properties of shared objects exemplify this, as the mutation affects all references to that object across the program.[22] These side effects introduce implications for data flow, particularly aliasing problems where multiple references point to the same mutable object, leading to unexpected interactions and potential bugs in concurrent or multi-threaded contexts.[23] When one reference modifies the shared object, all aliases reflect the change, complicating program reasoning and debugging, as the state is no longer localized.[24] Persistence models distinguish between mutations on the stack and the heap: stack mutations, typically local variables, are scoped to function calls and discarded upon return, whereas heap mutations to dynamically allocated structures survive beyond the call, enabling long-term state sharing.[25] This distinction arises because the stack manages automatic memory with lifetime tied to scopes, while the heap supports explicit allocation and deallocation, allowing mutations to influence distant parts of the program.[26] Mutable state side effects offer advantages in efficiency for performance-critical code by avoiding the overhead of data copying, which is particularly beneficial in domains like graphics rendering where large buffers or vertex arrays are frequently updated.[4] In such applications, in-place modifications reduce memory bandwidth usage and latency, enabling real-time processing without the cost of immutable alternatives that require creating new copies for each update.[27] In formal analysis, mutable state side effects are modeled in denotational semantics as state transformers of the form , where represents the initial state, the computed value, and the second the modified state, contrasting with pure functions that yield only .[28] This monadic structure captures how computations thread state through the program, providing a mathematical foundation for reasoning about impurity.[29]Properties and Implications
Idempotence
In computer science, an idempotent operation is one that can be applied multiple times without changing the result beyond its initial application, ensuring that repeated executions produce the same observable outcome and side effects as a single execution.[30] This property is particularly valuable in systems where retries or duplicate invocations may occur due to failures, as it prevents unintended accumulations of changes.[31] Mathematically, idempotence for a unary function on a domain is defined by the equation for all , meaning the function applied to its own output yields the same result as a single application.[30] In stateful computing contexts, this extends to operations that interact with mutable state, where multiple invocations must leave the system state and any external effects unchanged after the first execution, assuming identical inputs and no intervening modifications.[31] Idempotent operations are compatible with side effects, provided those effects do not accumulate or differ on repetition; for instance, setting a variable to a fixed value (e.g., a flag to true) produces the desired state once and ignores further applications without additional changes.[30] In contrast, operations like incrementing a counter are non-idempotent because each repetition alters the state cumulatively, leading to divergent results.[30] Representative examples include HTTP methods such as GET, where multiple identical requests to retrieve a resource yield the same response without altering server state.[32] In databases, insert operations become idempotent when enforced by unique key constraints; for example, PostgreSQL'sON CONFLICT DO NOTHING clause ignores duplicate inserts that violate uniqueness, ensuring no additional rows are added on retry.[33]
To test idempotence, software engineers can derive test cases from an abstracted model of the system, execute the operation once to establish a baseline state, then replay it multiple times under controlled conditions, verifying that the final observable state and effects match the single-execution baseline without deviations. This approach is especially useful in infrastructure-as-code automation, where state transitions are modeled to detect violations efficiently.
While idempotence enhances reliability in retry-prone environments, it is not inherent to all side-effecting operations; accumulative effects, such as appending to a log or debiting an account, inherently violate it by design, requiring additional mechanisms like unique identifiers to enforce idempotency.[31]
Impacts on Program Design
Side effects pose significant challenges to compiler optimizations, as they prevent aggressive transformations like inlining, common subexpression elimination, and instruction reordering, which rely on the absence of observable changes to program state. In languages with side-effecting operations, compilers must conservatively analyze code to avoid altering behavior, often resulting in suboptimal generated machine code. For instance, in C-like languages, optimizations can inadvertently introduce security vulnerabilities by assuming no side effects in expressions that actually modify memory, leading to issues like constant-time failures in cryptographic primitives. In contrast, Haskell's lazy evaluation strategy, enabled by the language's purity guarantees that minimize side effects, allows for more sophisticated optimizations such as deforestation and fusion, though it introduces complexities in managing evaluation order without side effects disrupting referential transparency.[34][35][36] In concurrent programming, side effects exacerbate thread safety problems by introducing nondeterminism and race conditions, where multiple threads accessing shared mutable state can lead to inconsistent outcomes or crashes. This necessitates the use of synchronization primitives like locks or atomic operations to protect side-effecting code, which in turn can introduce performance overheads and risks of deadlocks. Research highlights that the inherent difficulties of threads stem from their interleaving model, which amplifies side effects in shared memory, making it challenging to reason about program correctness without exhaustive testing. Immutability and uniqueness types have been proposed to mitigate these issues by restricting side effects in parallel contexts, ensuring safe sharing without synchronization.[37][38] Programming paradigms exhibit stark contrasts in their treatment of side effects, influencing overall software architecture. Imperative languages, such as C++ or Java, embrace side effects as a core mechanism for state management, enabling direct control over mutable variables and I/O, which aligns with von Neumann architectures but complicates reasoning about program flow. Functional paradigms, exemplified by Haskell, minimize side effects through immutability and pure functions, promoting composability and easier verification at the cost of potential runtime overheads from avoiding mutation. This shift reduces error-prone state interactions but requires careful design to handle necessary effects like input/output via monads.[39][40] Side effects play a dual role in error handling: they enable robust retries in idempotent designs, where repeated executions produce consistent outcomes without additional state changes, but they complicate rollback mechanisms in transactional systems by potentially leaving partial effects that violate atomicity. In distributed transactions, non-idempotent side effects can lead to inconsistencies during failures, requiring compensatory actions or two-phase commits to restore consistency, which add complexity and latency. Idempotence serves as a key tool here to mitigate retry failures in fault-tolerant systems. Temporal side effects further challenge parallel designs by introducing timing-dependent behaviors that undermine predictability.[31][41] Modern trends address side effect management through effect systems, which explicitly track and isolate effects at the type level to improve modularity and safety. In Scala, effect systems like those based on algebraic effects allow developers to declare and compose effects such as I/O or state without global monad stacks, facilitating better resource handling and error propagation. Similarly, Idris incorporates algebraic effects with dependent types, enabling precise reasoning about effectful computations and their handlers, which supports verified programs with controlled side effects. These systems bridge imperative flexibility with functional purity, reducing boilerplate while preserving performance.[42][43] While side effects can enhance efficiency by enabling techniques like I/O batching—where multiple operations are grouped to amortize overheads and reduce system calls—they simultaneously heighten the risk of bugs, such as subtle concurrency errors or unintended state leaks that are harder to debug. In performance-critical applications, this trade-off manifests in distributed systems, where batching updates improves throughput but delays freshness, necessitating careful balancing of latency and consistency. Overall, the bug risk from side effects often outweighs gains in impure codebases, underscoring the value of disciplined effect usage.[44][45]Examples
Code Illustrations
To illustrate side effects, consider simple code snippets in common programming languages that demonstrate how functions can alter external state or produce observable changes beyond their return values.Imperative Example in C: Global Variable Mutation
In C, functions can mutate global variables, which have static storage duration and are accessible across the program, leading to side effects that persist beyond the function's scope.[46] The following example declares a global integercounter and a function increment() that modifies it:
#include <stdio.h>
int counter = [0](/page/0); // Global variable with static storage duration
void increment(void) {
counter++; // Mutates the global state
}
int main(void) {
[printf](/page/Printf)("Before: %d\n", counter); // Outputs [0](/page/0)
increment();
[printf](/page/Printf)("After: %d\n", counter); // Outputs 1
return 0;
}
#include <stdio.h>
int counter = [0](/page/0); // Global variable with static storage duration
void increment(void) {
counter++; // Mutates the global state
}
int main(void) {
[printf](/page/Printf)("Before: %d\n", counter); // Outputs [0](/page/0)
increment();
[printf](/page/Printf)("After: %d\n", counter); // Outputs 1
return 0;
}
increment() changes counter visible in main(), exemplifying a mutable state side effect.[46]
Functional Counterexample in Haskell: Pure Function vs. Impure IO Action
Haskell distinguishes pure functions, which compute values without side effects and maintain referential transparency, from impure IO actions that perform observable operations like printing.[47] A pure function for addition:add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = x + y -- No side effects; same inputs always yield same output
add :: Int -> Int -> Int
add x y = x + y -- No side effects; same inputs always yield same output
import System.IO
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn "Hello" -- Performs side effect: outputs to console
let result = add 2 3 -- Pure computation embedded in IO
putStrLn (show result) -- Outputs "5", but printing is the side effect
import System.IO
main :: IO ()
main = do
putStrLn "Hello" -- Performs side effect: outputs to console
let result = add 2 3 -- Pure computation embedded in IO
putStrLn (show result) -- Outputs "5", but printing is the side effect
putStrLn action introduces a side effect by interacting with the external world, violating referential transparency if substituted directly.[47]
Mutation Demo in Python: List Append Altering Shared State
Python lists are mutable sequences, so methods likeappend() modify the object in place, affecting all references to it and creating shared state side effects across functions.[48]
Consider two functions sharing a list:
def add_item(shared_list, item):
shared_list.append(item) # Mutates the list in place
def process_list(shared_list):
print(f"Current items: {shared_list}") # Observes the mutated state
# Usage
my_list = [1, 2]
print(f"Initial: {my_list}") # Outputs: [1, 2]
add_item(my_list, 3)
process_list(my_list) # Outputs: [1, 2, 3]
def add_item(shared_list, item):
shared_list.append(item) # Mutates the list in place
def process_list(shared_list):
print(f"Current items: {shared_list}") # Observes the mutated state
# Usage
my_list = [1, 2]
print(f"Initial: {my_list}") # Outputs: [1, 2]
add_item(my_list, 3)
process_list(my_list) # Outputs: [1, 2, 3]
add_item() alters my_list, which process_list() then observes, demonstrating how mutation propagates through shared references.[49]
Non-Idempotent Case: Incrementing a Counter
A non-idempotent operation changes state cumulatively with each invocation, such as incrementing a global counter, where repeated calls produce different results due to accumulating side effects. In Python, using a global variable:counter = 0 # Global mutable state
def increment_counter():
global counter
counter += 1 # Side effect: increments shared state
return counter
print([increment_counter](/page/First_Call)()) # Outputs: 1
print([increment_counter](/page/First_Call)()) # Outputs: 2 (different from [first call](/page/First_Call))
counter = 0 # Global mutable state
def increment_counter():
global counter
counter += 1 # Side effect: increments shared state
return counter
print([increment_counter](/page/First_Call)()) # Outputs: 1
print([increment_counter](/page/First_Call)()) # Outputs: 2 (different from [first call](/page/First_Call))
increment_counter() modifies counter irreversibly, illustrating non-idempotence as the outcome depends on prior executions.[50]
Verification: Observing Side Effects Through Program Traces or Debuggers
Side effects become evident by tracing variable states before and after operations, such as comparing values in program output or using debuggers to inspect memory.[51] For instance, in the C example, a debugger like GDB can set breakpoints aroundincrement() and use the print counter command to verify the mutation from 0 to 1.
Similarly, Python's pdb module allows stepping through code with pdb.set_trace() and checking list(counter) to observe changes in the counter example.
These techniques highlight temporal side effects in sequential execution by revealing state alterations not captured in return values alone.