On Wed, 8 Aug 2007, Paul Hudak wrote:
...
> Well, you could argue, monad syntax is what really made Haskell become
> more accepted by the masses, and you may be right (although perhaps
> Simon's extraordinary performance at OSCOM is more of what we need). On
> the other hand, if we give imperative programmers the tools to do all
> the things they are used to doing in C++, then we will be depriving them
> of the joys of programming in the Functional Way. How many times have
> we seen responses to newbie posts along the lines of, "That's how you'd
> do it in C++, but in Haskell here's a better way...".
It seems to me that Brian Hulley threw the glove down hard. Does
pure functional Haskell offer a better way to write a GUI?
I love the functional stuff myself, but if real applications depend
on extensive imperative logic, we're best served by a language that
cheerfully embraces the inevitable and handles it well. Monads, the
do syntax, whatever it takes (I have a soft spot for O'Haskell, but
alas I must be nearly alone on that.) Hopefully, it's still better,
and not at all irreconcilable with the Functional Way.
Donn Cave, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(That's a genuine question, by the way - my attempt to build a
current Haskell GUI library on NetBSD foundered and I have no
experience with Haskell GUI coding, but it's on the list of things
I would like to look at. So if there's one that really illustrates
the virtues of pure functional Haskell programming, that would be
a welcome tip!)
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
