Raul Miller-4 wrote: > > This is only because the monadic description of the process is > incomplete (it does not deal with the other system with which you > are communicating -- if it did, then all systems would be side > effect free merely by communicating with a system which > implements monads). > But how can you program anything in any programming language if you cannot precisely specify problem you're solving? So let's say we do have some description of all the systems in your scheme that are communicating and how. What should make us think that some clever monadologist would not be able to come up with a monadic description of this entire system?
In every single programming language after we write code, we: enter, evaluate, print. Since enter and print are not pure functions, conclusion would be that no pure function is able to describe our programming procedure. But Haskellians say: yes, they are not pure functions, but the programming process involving these two dirty and one pure operation is still described in terms of a purely functional monad. We can describe and contain, within our pure scheme, these two dirty operations. -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/xmonad--was-Re%3A--Jprogramming--tail-recursion-TCO---tp23636312s24193p23663386.html Sent from the J Chat mailing list archive at Nabble.com. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
