3 ms·
So why Haskell and not, for instance, SML? I guess SML is not necessarily pure, but it certainly a much simpler language than Haskell.
by eatonphil 11y ago
So why Haskell and not, for instance, SML? I guess SML is not necessarily pure, but it certainly a much simpler language than Haskell.
- tel 11y agoSML can do this well with embedded DSLs, but effect typing is a powerful tool for this idea.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y agoSimplicity means power, that's the problem.
- Peaker 11y agoWithout purity, you have the power to express a lot more, burdening the reader. Purity lets you easily and arbitrarily constrain a function or program -- easing the burden for the reader who is free to assume so much more about what they read.