2 ms·

Suppose you wanted to write professional software in Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions. How would you do it? I don’t believe it can actua

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

Suppose you wanted to write professional software in Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions. How would you do it? I don’t believe it can actually be done in a serious way. Suppose you’re using C++ but you don’t want any objects, exceptions or templating. Ok, you’ll be fine. It will be a lot like C, but you’ll be fine. Nothing will be substantially harder to solve, design or implement.

tome 7y ago
> Suppose you wanted to write professional software in Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions. How would you do it? I don’t believe it can actually be done in a serious way. People write professional software in OCaml and Scheme so I hardly believe your suggestion is impossible. > Suppose you’re using C++ but you don’t want any objects, exceptions or templating. Ok, you’ll be fine. It will be a lot like C, but you’ll be fine. Sure, and the same applies to Haskell, except with Standard ML instead of C. I'm not suggesting that one would be particularly productive like that, only that the level of complexity of Haskell is about the same order as the level of complexity of C++, and one can reduce one's subset of Haskell (all the way down to SML if necessary) in the same way that one can reduce one's subset of C++ (all the way down to C if necessary). > Nothing will be substantially harder to solve, design or implement. That surely can't be the case. If it were then objects, exceptions and templating would never have been implemented.
efnx 7y ago
I must be missing the point here because if you wanted to “write ... Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions” you could simply write your modules (Haskell supports modules) and then write your IO. Done. Is that what you mean? Or is this really about something else?

2 ms·

Suppose you wanted to write professional software in Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions. How would you do it? I don’t believe it can actua

by mlthoughts2018 7y ago

tome 7y ago
> Suppose you wanted to write professional software in Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions. How would you do it? I don’t believe it can actually be done in a serious way. People write professional software in OCaml and Scheme so I hardly believe your suggestion is impossible. > Suppose you’re using C++ but you don’t want any objects, exceptions or templating. Ok, you’ll be fine. It will be a lot like C, but you’ll be fine. Sure, and the same applies to Haskell, except with Standard ML instead of C. I'm not suggesting that one would be particularly productive like that, only that the level of complexity of Haskell is about the same order as the level of complexity of C++, and one can reduce one's subset of Haskell (all the way down to SML if necessary) in the same way that one can reduce one's subset of C++ (all the way down to C if necessary). > Nothing will be substantially harder to solve, design or implement. That surely can't be the case. If it were then objects, exceptions and templating would never have been implemented.
efnx 7y ago
I must be missing the point here because if you wanted to “write ... Haskell using only the IO monad and modules of functions” you could simply write your modules (Haskell supports modules) and then write your IO. Done. Is that what you mean? Or is this really about something else?