4 ms·
Why do you say that? Imagine you wrote a language that looked procedural but was actually relational underneath? We could get rid of so much glue and use unific
by convolvatron 2y ago
Why do you say that? Imagine you wrote a language that looked procedural but was actually relational underneath? We could get rid of so much glue and use unification when it made sense and ignore it otherwise. That’s a great idea
- winwang 2y agoSounds similar to Haskell "do" notation where it can look procedural, but backed by FP principles and tools. (Something something monads are sequentialness)