4 ms·
I do. I'm not saying it's not possible to reach that state. Just that there are many things I tend to find easier to think about in mutable terms. And when tryi
by lz400 9y ago
I do. I'm not saying it's not possible to reach that state. Just that there are many things I tend to find easier to think about in mutable terms. And when trying to implement immutable equivalents there are also trade offs. I don't start from the point of view that functional programming is superior and everything should be done in terms of lambda calculus and purely functional data structures. I also don't deny that is good for some, maybe many use cases.
- tome 9y agoIt's fair enough if those are your needs but I think your comment would be better expressed as "For the sorts of programming I do I want to add to a list or change a map's value". Otherwise you give uninformed people the impression that Haskell cannot be used for "real world" programming. It can be and it is.
- lz400 9y agoOk you are right, now that I read what I wrote it could be interpreted that way and it wasn't my intention at all. I know Haskell can be used for real world programming because I own a book called "real world haskell" :) I was abusing the expression to put forward a case in which I believe the mutable thinking comes across as more natural (imo).
- tome 9y agoFair enough. Language is rather ambiguous!