On 10/26/07, Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Bob La Quey wrote: > > On 10/26/07, Stewart Stremler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Personally, I *like* the idea of passing around the state; it's just > >> that when you also throw in a desire to avoid side-effects that I get > >> uncomfortable with the tradeoff. > > > > Uh duh. You and I are not communicating. I really do not > > see the need for side effects. I understand that they are used > > a lot in conventional programming. I just do not see why they > > _must_ be used nor what efficiencies they imply. > > For most things I am not so concerned about the performance of my apps. > Just about everything I use is fast enough. But not everything is > bug-free enough. These days I am much more concerned with correct than > fast (top currently showing 98.6% idle cpu). I wouldn't mind trading > some of my computing power for correctness (which I believe implies more > security as well).
I completely agree. The fact that one can prove the correctness of even part of what one computes is a _big_ step forward. I just do _not_ see why the efficiency hit has to be a big deal. But maybe I am missing something. BobLQ -- [email protected] http://www.kernel-panic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/kplug-lpsg
