Conal,
I think TV etc. is fantastic stuff, but that mean that we cannot, say,
invoke an external program in Haskell until someone has figured out a
composable library for this?
I sincerely hope someone will, but the only way we have right now is the
ugly IO monad.
-- Lennart
On Dec 9, 2007
I think your real point is that some things we still haven't figured out how
to express functionally. Right? I would certainly agree with that part.
Perhaps you exaggerating when you wrote IO is important because you can't
write any real program without using it.
Cheers, - Conal
On Dec 9, 2007
Am Sonntag, 9. Dezember 2007 21:29 schrieb Conal Elliott:
I think your real point is that some things we still haven't figured out
how to express functionally. Right?
That's my point, at least. Currently, AFAIK, the only way to get input and
produce output is via the IO monad, so it is de
Thanks for the clarification.
AFAIK, the only way to get input and produce output is via the IO monad
Now you know something different, don't you? FRP, Pan, TV. Also
Grapefruit, functional forms, and others I'm not thinking of or don't know
about.
As for your example, mixing the IO with the
Maybe I'm exaggerating, but it's true for 96% of all programs. (96% is with
a :-))
I did not express anything that was meant to be a perpetual truth, only best
practice at the moment.
For a living I write programs that are almost without interaction with the
outside world. Still, I need a to
