On Wed 22 Sep, Claus Reinke wrote:
> Such questions are bound to end up in language wars. I'll try a neutral
> approach below to stop this sub-thread right here and now, but if anyone
> really wants to follow this question any further, may I suggest to take
> this general part of the discussion to comp.lang.functional?
Sorry, I think threads should continue where they started.
> Haskell tries to be pure, but as it also
> aims to support imperative programming, it is no longer purely
> functional.
I'm curious. Could you explain exactly what features of Haskell
you think render claims of 'pure functionality' false?
P.S. I agree with you, but I'm not sure if it's for the same reasons.
(You already know my opinion, I think).
Regards
--
Adrian Hey
