4 ms·
> Of course I guess I could use unsafePerformIO everywhere I don't understand comments like this. This is obviously not something that Haskellers actually do,
by centimeter 6y ago
> Of course I guess I could use unsafePerformIO everywhere
I don't understand comments like this. This is obviously not something that Haskellers actually do, so the simplest conclusion (or, it seemed simplest to me starting Haskell) is that thinking this is necessary is simply indicative of not understanding how to program functionally/monadically. Indeed, once you figure out Haskell idioms this isn't ever an issue.
You might also say that OCaml suffers from using unsafePerformIO everywhere, all the time.
> modular implicits would be a game changer for OCaml.
They would be very nice!
- smabie 6y agoOf course it's not necessary. I have a lot of experience with Haskell, but I still believe the Haskell way of tracking effects puts an undue burden on the developer. I'm simply not interested in keeping track of effects and mutation. In my experience, there's little value in the monadization of all effects and also a non-trivial cost. I much prefer the traditional FP style of avoiding mutation and side-effects but not lifting them into the type system when they are necessary. This does mean you can screw up and accidentally mutate things, but I've personally never had the problem.