Sorry, a long and pseudo-philosophical treatise. Trash it before reading.
Heinrich Apfelmus:
You could say that side effects have been moved from functions to some
other type (namely IO) in Haskell.
I have no reason to be categorical, but I believe that calling the
interaction of a Haskell programme with the World - a "side effect" is
sinful, and it is a source of semantical trouble.
People do it, SPJ (cited by S. Horne) did it as well, and this is too bad.
People, when you eat a sandwich: are you doing "side effects"?? If you
break a tooth on it, this IS a side effect, but neither the eating nor
digesting it, seems to be one.
This term should be used in a way compatible with its original meaning,
that something happens implicitly, "behind the curtain", specified most
often in an informal way (not always deserving to be called
"operational"). If you call all the assignments "side effects", why not
call - let x = whatever in Something - also a "local side-effect"?
Oh, that you can often transform let in the application of lambda, thus
purely functional?
Doesn't matter, Steve Horne will explain you that (sorry for the irony):
"let is a compile-time pure construct ; at execution this is impure,
because x got a value".
S.H. admits that he reasons within his model, and has problems with
others. Everybody has such problems, but I see here something the (true)
Frenchies call "un dialogue de sourds". For me a Haskell programme is
ABSOLUTELY pure, including the IO. The issue is that `bind` within the
IO monad has an implicit parameter, the World. In fact, a stream of
Worlds, every putWhatever, getLine, etc. passes to a new instance.
We do not control this World, we call it "imperative" (whatever this
means, concerning eating a sandwich, or exploding an impure neutron
bomb), so we abuse the term "side effect" as hell!
The "Haskell sector" of the global world, the programme itself is just a
function. Pure as the robe of an angel. Simply, you are not allowed by
the Holy Scripts to look under this robe.
==
The rest is a (pure of course) délire.
Well, you might not believe me, but philosophically you don't need to
imagine the World as imperative. Personally I am a believer in the
Quantum Religion. If you accept all them Holy Dogmas of Unitarity, of
Linearity, etc., if you believe in the True Quantum Nature of the real
world, - then it becomes ... functional. Pure.
Without a single trace of any "side effects".
The problem is that residing inside this world precludes the possibility
of considering *observed things* as pure, they are conceptually detached
from the stream of the Universe Vectors. They "change", so you say:
HaHa!! A particle got ASSIGNED a new position! This is an imperative
side-effect! -
- while from the point of view of an external observer, a common
evolution operator transformed both of you, YOU and the particle into a
new instance of this sector.
OK, I stop here, otherwise the digestion of your sandwiches may produce
some side effects.
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
Caen, France.
(William the Conqueror was here. Produced one nice side-effect.)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
