On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 3:45 PM, Steve Horne
<sh006d3...@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
> On 28/12/2011 20:44, Heinrich Apfelmus wrote:
>>
>> Steve Horne wrote:
>>>
>>> This is just my view on whether Haskell is pure, being offered up for
>>> criticism. I haven't seen this view explicitly articulated anywhere before,
>>> but it does seem to be implicit in a lot of explanations - in particular the
>>> description of Monads in SBCs "Tackling the Awkward Squad". I'm entirely
>>> focused on the IO monad here, but aware that it's just one concrete case of
>>> an abstraction.
>>>
>>> Warning - it may look like trolling at various points. Please keep going
>>> to the end before making a judgement.
>>>
>>> To make the context explicit, there are two apparently conflicting
>>> viewpoints on Haskell...
>>>
>>> 1. The whole point of the IO monad is to support programming with
>>> side-effecting actions - ie impurity.
>>> 2. The IO monad is just a monad - a generic type (IO actions), a couple
>>> of operators (primarily return and bind) and some rules - within a
>>> pure functional language. You can't create impurity by taking a
>>> subset of a pure language.
>>>
>>> My view is that both of these are correct, each from a particular point
>>> of view. Furthermore, by essentially the same arguments, C is also both an
>>> impure language and a pure one. [...]
>>
>>
>> Purity has nothing to do with the question of whether you can express IO
>> in Haskell or not.
>>
> ...
>
>
>> The beauty of the IO monad is that it doesn't change anything about
>> purity. Applying the function
>>
>> bar :: Int -> IO Int
>>
>> to the value 2 will always give the same result:
>>
> Yes - AT COMPILE TIME by the principle of referential transparency it always
> returns the same action. However, the whole point of that action is that it
> might potentially be executed (with potentially side-effecting results) at
> run-time. Pure at compile-time, impure at run-time. What is only modeled at
> compile-time is realized at run-time, side-effects included.
>
I don't think I would put it that way - the value 'bar 2' is a regular
Haskell value. I can put it in a list, return it from a function and
all other things:
myIOActions :: [IO Int]
myIOActions = [bar 2, bar (1+1), bar (5-3)]
And I can pick any of the elements of the list to execute in my main
function, and I get the same main function either way.
> Consider the following...
>
> #include <stdio.h>
>
> int main (int argc, char*argv)
> {
> char c;
> c = getchar ();
> putchar (c);
> return 0;
> }
>
> The identifier c is immutable. We call it a variable, but the compile-time
> value of c is really just some means to find the actual value in the "big
> implicit IORef" at runtime - an offset based on the stack pointer or
> whatever. Nothing mutates until compile-time, and when that happens, the
> thing that mutates (within that "big implicit IORef") is separate from that
> compile-time value of c.
>
> In C and in Haskell - the side-effects are real, and occur at run-time.
>
> That doesn't mean Haskell is as bad as C - I get to the advantages of
> Haskell at the end of my earlier post. Mostly unoriginal, but I think the
> bit about explicit vs. implicit IORefs WRT an alternate view of transparency
> is worthwhile.
>
> I hope If convinced you I'm not making one of the standard newbie mistakes.
> I've done all that elsewhere before, but not today, honest.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
