# TON: Is Haskell More Fun than FunC?

Article by Kirill Elagin
October 30th, 2019

## Telegram Open Network

Telegram Open Network is a relatively new smart-contracts platform developed by the team behind the Telegram messenger. It was announced in late 2017 and first source code was published in September this year. Five weeks ago, they started a competition. In it, developers were asked to either implement a smart-contract or contribute to the platform in one way or another.

After giving it a little consideration, we decided to participate as a company and implement two smart-contracts from the list of organisers’ suggestions. For one of them we chose to use the development tools provided with the TON distribution, for the other one we decided to do what we like doing the most: implement it in a new language built specifically for TON and embedded into Haskell with its incredibly rich type system.

We believe the plan worked out exceptionally well, so we would like to showcase our entries and our approach to smart-contracts and embedded languages. The competition was incredibly fun and engaging and, hopefully, so will be this blog post.

(Update: We have won the largest prize!)

### TON Blockchain research

We always try to keep on top of recent developments in the areas that we work in, blockchain being one of them, thus we were already familiar with the ideas from the TON white paper. However, we hadn’t looked at the technical documentation and the actual source code of the platform before, so this was an obvious first step. If you are interested too, you can find the official documentation at https://test.ton.org and in the source repository.

Since the code had been published for quite a while by that time, we also tried searching for guides or summaries produced by users, but, unfortunately, all we could find were tutorials showing how to build the platform on Ubuntu, which was not relevant to us anyway (you will see why in a minute).

The documentation turned out to be very thorough but sometimes hard to read as it was often jumping back and forth between high level explanations of abstract ideas and low level details of their specific implementations. We thought it would be a huge improvement to extract the implementation details into a separate document, as it would not only make the specifications more approachable, but also reduce their sizes. Developers creating smart-contracts for the TON platform do not need to know how the virtual machine represents its stack internally.

### Nix: Building the code

Here at Serokell we are huge fans of Nix: all our servers run on NixOS, we build our projects with Nix and deploy using NixOps. It helps us make sure are builds are reproducible and will work on any OS supported by Nix without us worrying about OS or distribution specific aspects of the build.

Therefore, we started by creating a Nix overlay with a build expression for TON. You can find more details if you follow the link, but, long story short, with this overlay compiling TON is as simple as:

$cd ~/.config/nixpkgs/overlays && git clone https://github.com/serokell/ton.nix$ cd /path/to/ton/repo && nix-shell
[nix-shell]$cmakeConfigurePhase && make  Note that you don’t have to worry about installing the build dependencies, Nix will magically handle everything for you whether you are running NixOS, Ubuntu, or macOS on a MacBook. Everyone should be using Nix for all their building needs! ### Programming for TON The code of smart-contracts deployed to the TON Network is executed by a virtual machine called the TON Virtual Machine (TVM). More complex than most virtual machines, this one provides some quite unconvential capabilities, such as native support for continuations and data references. TON developers created three (!) new programming languages: • Fift is a general-purpose stack-based programming language, somewhat similar to Forth. Its special power is the built-in support for interfacing with the TVM. • FunC is a smart-contract programming language that feels a lot like C and compiles to yet another language called Fift Assembler. • Fift Assembler is a little different from “traditional” programming languages in that it doesn’t have a compiler. Instead, it is an Embedded Domain-Specific Language (eDSL), in other words, it is a Forth library that allows one to write Forth programs that generate binary executable code for the TVM. ## Our competition entries ### Asynchronous payment channel A “payment channel” is a smart-contract that allows two users to send payments to each other off-chain, thus saving money (transaction fees) and time (they don’t have to wait for a block to be issued). This way, the payments can be as small and frequent as needed, and the users still do not need to trust each other, as the final settlement is guaranteed by the smart-contract. After thinking about it for a couple of days, we realised that there was a pretty simple solution to the problem: the two parties can exchange signed messages where each message will, essentially, carry two numbers – the total amounts paid by each of them so far. These two numbers will work as Vector clock in traditional distributed systems and thus will induce a “happened-before“ order on the payment transactions, which will allow the contract to resolve any possible conflicts in the end. We played a little with the idea and realised that just one number is enough, however we still decided to keep both for UX purposes; we also decided to include the payment amount in every message merely for UX as well. Without it, if some of the messages get lost on their way, while the total sums and thus the final settlement will be correct, the users wouldn’t notice that something was lost. In order to verify our idea, we did a quick search. To our great surprise, we did not find a lot of mentions of this simple and elegant payment channel protocol. In fact, we found only two: 1. this explanation of essentially the same idea but only for the case of a uni-directional channel; 2. this tutorial that presents the same idea as ours, but does not go into a lot of detail regarding correctness and dispute resolution. Somewhat puzzled we drafted our own specification of this protocol, trying to make it very detailed and focusing on the explanation of its correctness. After a number of iterations it was ready and you are welcome to have a look at it. With the specification at hand, we set off to write the code. We implemented the contract in FunC and, following the recommendations of the organisers, the command-line tool for interacting with our contract was entirely in Fift. We could have chosen any other language for our CLI, but we thought it would be interesting to try Fift and see how it works for us in this case. In retrospect, we can say that we don’t really see any good reasons to prefer Fift to other well-established and supported languages with good libraries and tooling. Programming in a stack-based language is unnecessarily hard and is especially bad due to Fift’s lack of static types – keeping track of your stack layout requires a lot of effort. Because of the above, the only justification for the existence of Fift seems to be its role as a host language for Fift Assembler. “But wouldn’t it be a better idea to embed the TVM Assembler into some other language, instead of inventing a new one for this sole purpose?” – you might wonder. Well, we’re glad you asked! ### TVM Haskell eDSL We also decided to implement a multisignature wallet, but we thought that writing another FunC contract would be not that interesting, so we added a twist: our own assembler language for TVM. Just as Fift Assembler, our new language was embedded into another language but we chose Haskell as the host. This gave us access to all the power of Haskell’s static types, and we are firm believers of static typing, especially when working with smart-contracts – an area where the cost of a small mistake can be very high. To give you an idea of what TVM assembler embedded into Haskell feels like, we have reimplemented the standard wallet contract in it. Before you take a look at the code, here are a couple of important things to keep in mind: • This contract consists of a single function, but you can have many of them. When you define a new function in the host language (that is Haskell), our eDSL allows you to choose whether you want it to be translated into a separate routine in TVM or inlined at the place of the call. • Just like in Haskell, functions have their types specified and these are checked during compilation. In our eDSL, the input type of a function is the type of the stack that it expects, and the output type is the type of the stack that its invocation will result in. • There are stacktype annotations here and there in the code. In the original wallet contract these were just comments, but in our eDSL they are actually part of the code and are checked at compile time. These can serve as documentation and as assertions that can help the developer find an issue in case they make a change in the code and something doesn’t compile. Of course, they do not have any effect on performance at run time as they do not result in any TVM code being generated. • It is still a prototype quickly put together in about two weeks. There is plenty of room for improvement, for example all class instances you will see in the code below can (and should) be auto-generated. And now, here is a full reimplementation of the simple wallet in our eDSL: main :: IO () main = putText$ pretty \$ declProgram procedures methods
where
procedures =
[ ("recv_external", decl recvExternal)
, ("recv_internal", decl recvInternal)
]
methods =
[ ("seqno", declMethod getSeqno)
]

data Storage = Storage
{ sCnt :: Word32
, sPubKey :: PublicKey
}

instance DecodeSlice Storage where
type DecodeSliceFields Storage = [PublicKey, Word32]
decodeFromSliceImpl = do
decodeFromSliceImpl @Word32
decodeFromSliceImpl @PublicKey

instance EncodeBuilder Storage where
encodeToBuilder = do
encodeToBuilder @Word32
encodeToBuilder @PublicKey

data WalletError
= SeqNoMismatch
| SignatureMismatch
deriving (Eq, Ord, Show, Generic)

instance Exception WalletError

instance Enum WalletError where
toEnum 33 = SeqNoMismatch
toEnum 34 = SignatureMismatch
toEnum _ = error "Uknown MultiSigError id"

recvInternal :: '[Slice] :-> '[]
recvInternal = drop

recvExternal :: '[Slice] :-> '[]
recvExternal = do
decodeFromSlice @Signature
dup
stacktype @[Word32, Slice, Signature]
-- cnt cs sign

pushRoot
decodeFromCell @Storage
stacktype @[PublicKey, Word32, Word32, Slice, Signature]
-- pk cnt' cnt cs sign

xcpu @1 @2
stacktype @[Word32, Word32, PublicKey, Word32, Slice, Signature]
-- cnt cnt' pk cnt cs sign

equalInt >> throwIfNot SeqNoMismatch

push @2
sliceHash
stacktype @[Hash Slice, PublicKey, Word32, Slice, Signature]
-- hash pk cnt cs sign

xc2pu @0 @4 @4
stacktype @[PublicKey, Signature, Hash Slice, Word32, Slice, PublicKey]
-- pubk sign hash cnt cs pubk

chkSignU
stacktype @[Bool, Word32, Slice, PublicKey]
-- ? cnt cs pubk

throwIfNot SignatureMismatch
accept

swap
decodeFromSlice @Word32
nip

dup
srefs @Word8

pushInt 0
if IsEq
then ignore
else do
decodeFromSlice @Word8
decodeFromSlice @(Cell MessageObject)
stacktype @[Slice, Cell MessageObject, Word8, Word32, PublicKey]
xchg @2
sendRawMsg
stacktype @[Slice, Word32, PublicKey]

endS
inc

encodeToCell @Storage
popRoot

getSeqno :: '[] :-> '[Word32]
getSeqno = do
pushRoot
cToS


You can see the full source code of our eDSL and the multisig contract in this repository. If you got interested in typed eDSLs, you will most certainly like this blog post by one of my brilliant colleagues that goes into way greater depths than I ever could.

## Our thoughts on the competition & TON

First of all, we enjoyed the competition a lot! It gave us an unexpected break from our daily responsibilities (not that we don’t enjoy doing what we do daily, but nevertheless). This spirit of a hackathon, close team work, the need to quickly dive into a new technology – I think all engineers know how exciting it is.

We were impressed by the amount of work done by the TON team. They managed to build a pretty complex and at the same time beautiful system. And, most importantly, it works! However, we are not convinced all of this work was strictly necessary. Being engineers, we can definitely relate to the idea of Fift, a brand-new stack based (that is, in some sense, somewhat esoteric) programming language, but we believe that real-world applications more complex than simple CLI prototypes are beyond its capabilities, and what became Fift Assembler could have as easily been embedded into some other language (like Haskell!). Could it be that the developers had some other applications in mind that would justify the creation of Fift? It is possible, and if they did, we can’t wait to find out more.

The same can be said about FunC. Implementing a new high-level language from the ground up (they even have their own parser!) is certainly Fun, but we can’t really C the need for it. As a short-term strategy, the team could have taken an existing smart-contract language and adapted it to emit code for TVM; while in the long run we feel that having an LLVM backend for TVM would be great, as it would allow for a wide variety of source languages.

The above is especially true, given that it is clear that TVM has been designed with very high-level source languages (Haskell!) in mind. This makes us think that FunC is not meant to be used for actual production code, but is merely a demo, a prototype of a TVM-compatible high-level programming language, and if this is the case, then it does not make sense to put a lot of effort into it.

Overall, TON feels like a great platform and it surely has potential. There is a lot to be done to make the TON ecosystem flourish, both in terms of using it to implement solutions that require a blockchain infrastructure, and improving the tooling used to implement such solutions; and we would be proud to be part of this endeavour. So, if you think about relying on TON to solve your problem, let us know, we will definitely be able to help.

More from Serokell