Good explanation, thanks. I would take from it that "purity" is relative, just as "safeness" is. There are no safe languages, nor pure ones, just some that are

Good explanation, thanks. I would take from it that "purity" is relative, just as "safeness" is. There are no safe languages, nor pure ones, just some that are more pure than others. I guess I would have grasped your point earlier if Haskell had a keyword "IMPURE", just like C# has the keyword "unsafe". Come to think of it, doesn't "pure" in the context of PLs mean much the same as "safe"?