5 ms·

You are not rebutting that claim, you are being obtuse. >You can prove mathematical theorems with programs that have no side effects No, of course you can not

by Sssnake 13y ago

You are not rebutting that claim, you are being obtuse. >You can prove mathematical theorems with programs that have no side effects No, of course you can not. How do you see the result? That requires a side effect of some kind. >A good example of this is the execution of the main action in a Haskell program. That is a terrible example, as executing main precisely is a side effect.

nbouscal 13y ago
> No, of course you can not. How do you see the result? That requires a side effect of some kind. The result is whether or not the program type-checks. Your original claim was, again, that "without side effects you can't do anything". So, again, unless you are claiming that functions and libraries "don't do anything", your original claim was incorrect. Your new claim, that programs must have side effects to do anything, is still wrong but more debatable. You can call me obtuse if you want to, or you can learn how to communicate clearly and say what you actually mean. Doesn't much matter to me either way.
- Sssnake 13y ago
  >The result is whether or not the program type-checks. Ok, you are very confused. Type checking has nothing to do with program execution. Type checking is done at compile time. Any program with no side effects, the compile can safely optimize into nothing, since it does nothing. The compiler does the type checking, not the program. >Your new claim, that programs must have side effects to do anything, is still wrong but more debatable. It is the claim I made and you replied to. If you want to be pedantic and obtuse you can't expect people to not call you out on it.
  - nbouscal 13y ago
    Seriously? I'm directly quoting you in a post that is still visible, and you're denying it? Again, the quote that I originally replied to: "Without side effects you couldn't do anything." > Ok, you are very confused. You are both very arrogant and wrong. Not a pretty combination. Thank you oh so much for telling me that type checking is done at compile time, as though there were the slightest possibility I didn't know that given what I've been saying. If you took some time to learn how to have a conversation on the internet without being an asshole, you might actually learn something. Until then, I'll stop wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you. Cheers.

by Sssnake 13y ago

nbouscal 13y ago

> No, of course you can not. How do you see the result? That requires a side effect of some kind. The result is whether or not the program type-checks. Your original claim was, again, that "without side effects you can't do anything". So, again, unless you are claiming that functions and libraries "don't do anything", your original claim was incorrect. Your new claim, that programs must have side effects to do anything, is still wrong but more debatable. You can call me obtuse if you want to, or you can learn how to communicate clearly and say what you actually mean. Doesn't much matter to me either way.

Sssnake 13y ago
>The result is whether or not the program type-checks. Ok, you are very confused. Type checking has nothing to do with program execution. Type checking is done at compile time. Any program with no side effects, the compile can safely optimize into nothing, since it does nothing. The compiler does the type checking, not the program. >Your new claim, that programs must have side effects to do anything, is still wrong but more debatable. It is the claim I made and you replied to. If you want to be pedantic and obtuse you can't expect people to not call you out on it.
- nbouscal 13y ago
  Seriously? I'm directly quoting you in a post that is still visible, and you're denying it? Again, the quote that I originally replied to: "Without side effects you couldn't do anything." > Ok, you are very confused. You are both very arrogant and wrong. Not a pretty combination. Thank you oh so much for telling me that type checking is done at compile time, as though there were the slightest possibility I didn't know that given what I've been saying. If you took some time to learn how to have a conversation on the internet without being an asshole, you might actually learn something. Until then, I'll stop wasting my time trying to have a discussion with you. Cheers.