## Haskell’s magic wand is stunted, on purpose

An absolutely stunning feature of the lambda calculus is that it allows us to define functional recursion without using recursion. That is, the concept of recursion is fundamentally a by-product of being able to reproduce multiple copies of a function’s input in its output.

In other words, the “essence” of functional languages *does not require
recursion*, because it is theoretically possible to *define recursion
from other functional concepts without using recursion itself*.

But Haskell can’t do.

The gist of this feature is the existence of non-recursive fixed-point combinators.

To simplify, a fixed point combinator is a function which can equip
other, non-recursive, functions *a posteriori* with the ability to call
themselves, that is, recurse. So if a language has non-recursive
functions and a fixed-point combinator, it becomes possible to define
recursion with it. The beauty of the whole affair is that lambda
calculus allows us to write *fixed-point combinators without using
recursion in their definition*. One such fixed-point combinator is
called Y, and looks as follows:

**Y** = λf.(λx.f (x x)) (λx.f (x x))

Y is obviously not recursive: if it was, its name would be part of the right hand side of its definition. But once Y is defined, we can turn a non-recursive function into a recursive one, for example as follows:

add = λf.λn.(if (n == 0) then n else n + (f (n-1)))

add_r = (Y add)

In this example, “add” is obviously not defined recursively; it merely accepts a functional argument “f” and uses it when its second argument “n” is not zero. The second function “add_r” is also not defined recursively. However, the result of applying Y to “add” makes the resulting function recursive. In this example, “add_r 10” evaluates to 55 as expected.

Because functions like Y exist, one can bring the ability to recurse in any language sufficiently akin to lambda calculus, even if the language does not provide the ability to simultaneously name a function (i.e. write “X” in the right-hand side of “=”) and use the name in the function’s definition (i.e. write “X” in the left-hand side of “=”).

This is possible in Lisp, Python, ML, JavaScript, as well as most other functional languages in use nowadays.

But strangely, Haskell, the famously acclaimed state-of-the-art functional language, cannot define recursive functions without using recursion from another part of the language.

As discussed in this thread, any fixed point combinator in Haskell must be either defined recursively, for example

C = λf.(C f)

or it must be defined using a *recursive data type,* for example as follows:

newtype Mu a = Roll (Mu a → (a → a))unroll (Roll x) = xC’ = λf.( (λx.λz.(f ((unroll x) x z)))(Roll (λx.λz.(f ((unroll x) x z)))) )

Here C’ is not recursive, but uses the type Mu which is.

What gets in the way is Haskell’s type system.

The Haskell implementers chose to reject (make invalid) all non-recursive fixed-point combinators defined without recursive types because it solves another problem much more interesting to programmers: the ability of the language’s compiler to automatically determine the type of any function, even lazy functions definitions that operate on “infinite” data definitions. Indeed, it would not be possible in Haskell to automatically compute the type of all functions if non-recursive fixed-point combinators were also supported, because that would be equivalent to solving the Halting problem.

Because lazy function definitions were deemed so useful, support for non-recursive fixed-point combinators was abandoned as a trade-off.

This choice costs Haskell the loss of the most sexy feature of (untyped) lambda calculus, in order to promote functional laziness and recursive data definitions to software engineers.

**Publication Date:**