Re: Quote from comp.object

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).

• Tony