> Why not start from the imperative model This video gives a bit of discussion around that point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ https://www.youtu

> Why not start from the imperative model This video gives a bit of discussion around that point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ My take on it is that it's too hard to put the side-effect genie back into the bottle once you take it out. It's hard to write side-effect-free code out of side-effectful pieces. E.g. You can't make a reasonable transaction system if you allow side-effects. You just have to hope that the programmer doesn't include any code that can't be rolled back. > Haskell's "do" notation seems to be an acknowledgment of this, but to me it's adding another layer of abstraction just to recover what imperative syntax gives in the first place. Haskell do-notation and Scala for-comprehensions kick arse and I always miss them when I don't have them. I think lack of do-notation is my biggest complaint about Java syntax.