3 ms·
> GHC isn't even close to "pure lambda calculus" Well I reckon you're using a "strict" definition of pure and I'm using a "lazy" one.. ;) Let's say Haskell-t
by dualogy 10y ago
> GHC isn't even close to "pure lambda calculus"
Well I reckon you're using a "strict" definition of pure and I'm using a "lazy" one.. ;) Let's say Haskell-the-language is on the purer side of things and GHC-the-compiler by necessity closer to the messy not-so-pure real-world-er side of programs that run acceptably speedily reliably and sturdily most-of-the-time..
(IO monad "while used by the coder" seems plenty pure to me other than the background knowledge that eventually with a `main` entry point it will become hooked up with actual I/O.. but that's "semantics" hehe)
- lomnakkus 10y agoAlright, then -- I think we agree for all practical purposes :). Still, I think it is important to realize that while "IO" is 'sort-of-a-monad'... the truth isn't quite that simple :). There's a lot of nastiness hidden behind it, especially FFI and exception-related things... ugh. EDIT: My original point was mostly that maybe he hadn't thought this whole "async every method call!" thing through. That... leads to a mess, especially if every single "thing" you do is a "method call".