On Mar 5, 9:34 pm, "Marshall" <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> I tend to agree, actually. I think enforced purity isn't a great idea.
> However, I believe that purity ought to be the default. Today,
> most programmers use imperative techniques for virtually
> everything, and only occasionally drop in to a pure mode.
> I think a better way to be would be to reverse that, and only
> use imperative techniques when necessary and with the
> consciousness that you're doing something different. I think
> the success of impurely functional languages (SML, O'Caml)
> supports this idea.
>
Although I'd have to say I think I prefer Haskell's monads approach to
Standard ML - it seems to me to allow a cleaner break between the
functional code (pure as the driven snow) and the monads with
sequences and possibly side effects (pure as snow that's been driven
on).
Received on Mon Mar 05 2007 - 17:50:07 CST
