On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 10:00 -0700, Donn Cave wrote: > Quoth Jonathan Cast <jonathancc...@fastmail.fm>: > > On Wed, 2009-03-25 at 09:15 -0700, Donn Cave wrote: > > >> OK, these are interesting phenomena. From a practical point of view, > >> though, I could see someone weighing the potential costs and benefits > >> of a exception handler outside IO like this, and these effects might > >> not even carry all that much weight. > > > > Well, sure. From a purely `practical' point of view, I don't know why > > you would even use a purely functional language (as opposed to trying to > > minimize side effects in an impure language). But if you're not > > concerned about purity, or ease of equational reasoning, or accuracy of > > a wide range of compiler transformations/optimizations/because it makes > > the generated code pretty to sort the formal parameters by name before > > forcing them-implementation decisions, then please do not use Haskell. > > There are many other languages that are suitable for what you want to > > do, and it would be a courtesy to those of us who *do* use Haskell > > because it is purely functional, not to have to explicitly exclude your > > library from our picture of the language's capabilities. > > Concerned about purity, ease of equational reasoning, etc.? Sure ... > but I guess hoping we can agree on practical reasons for interest in > these things, as opposed to, or at least in addition to, their esthetic > or religious appeal. I'm guessing you would likewise,
Nope. You must not have been following my positions in previous discussions. I am committed to functional purity for its own sake (just as I am committed to software development for its own sake; don't you *dare* suggest using Global Script!) > if only because > a solely esthetic appeal is difficult angle to pursue because people's > esthetic sensibilities aren't guaranteed to line up very well. And in > fact the way I read the responses so far in this thread, the range of > attitudes towards the matter seems pretty wide to me, among people whose > views I respect. > So I thought it would be interesting to explore statements like "you > must not do this", and "pure Haskell is not allowed to be > non-deterministic", in terms of practical effects. No one would > make a statement like that and not hope to be challenged on it? What? Challenged by people who think Haskell should not be a purely functional language? I mean, that's kind of what it is. Again, if you don't want to use a purely functional language, there are *lots* of impure languages out there. There's no need to turn Haskell into one of them. jcc _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe