4 ms·
I'm not why tincholio expressed it like that. It's exactly to do with pragmatism. Mixing effects and laziness is not pragmatic exactly because it leads to ver
by tome 11y ago
I'm not why tincholio expressed it like that. It's exactly to do with pragmatism. Mixing effects and laziness is not pragmatic exactly because it leads to very confusing orders of effect execution.
- coldtea 11y agoFunctional is not about lazyness. So you don't have to mix effects with laziness, you can mix effects and other functional constructs (pure functions, immutable values, closures, map, fold, homoiconicity and macros, etc) and you still get a huge benefit. So the theme of the article "mostly functional can't work" is wrong.
- AnimalMuppet 11y agoBut (if I understood correctly), the article was about lazy functional, even if that was not stated in the title. Whether or not I read the article correctly, tome's comment was brilliant. It very succinctly exposed the pragmatic issue at stake.
- tome 11y ago> So the theme of the article "mostly functional can't work" is wrong. You're right. It's not really an issue of "functional" at all. It's worth noting that the author is an incorrigible (yet gentle) troll who likes to poke fun at Haskell and non-Haskell languages alike.