4 ms·

No - maybe read my comment again?

• bazoom42 4y ago
  People were saying the same thing about structured programming and object oriented programming back in the day. Lets say you have a huge overly-convoluted Haskell program. Somewhere deep down a call hierachy of pure functions you need to print something to the console. That is not easy to refactor. Or vice-versa you have a huge convoluted program where everything happens inside an IO monad because at some point something is written to the console. Now you realize you dont need to write to the console. Pure functions are great, but they are not a panacea.
  • tome 4y ago
    > Lets say you have a huge overly-convoluted Haskell program. Somewhere deep down a call hierachy of pure functions you need to print something to the console. That is not easy to refactor. > Or vice-versa you have a huge convoluted program where everything happens inside an IO monad because at some point something is written to the console. Now you realize you dont need to write to the console. These problems are essentially completely resolved these days by a modern effect system like effectful. Basically, they allow you to do arbitrary effects deep down a call stack with minimal plumbing (you still have adjust the types, as you should: that's the point of effect tracking!) and also to remove effects, so you can easily convert between pure code and "effectful code that just so happens to do no effects". https://github.com/haskell-effectful/effectful https://github.com/haskell-effectful/effectful
    • bazoom42 4y ago
      So until this library solved all problems, it was possible to create messy and hard-to-refactor code in Haskell.
      • tome 4y ago
        It's still possible to do that! It's just that particular rough edge (which was indeed a problem, just not a particularly important one) has been smoothed off.