On Tue, Jul 08, 2014 at 08:39:30PM +0200, Colin Fleming wrote: > I searched for this as well, and found this: > http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/~gmh/appsem-slides/peytonjones.ppt > > "Purity is more important than, and quite independent of, laziness" > > and > > "The next ML will be pure, with effects only via monads. The next Haskell > will be strict, but still pure."
In the same presentation he also says that laziness has forced Haskell to stay pure, and that "Every call-by-value language has given into the siren call of side effects." So even if they are independent on the technical level one could say that they are dependent on a design/social level. /M -- Magnus Therning OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4 email: mag...@therning.org jabber: mag...@therning.org twitter: magthe http://therning.org/magnus Most software today is very much like an Egyptian pyramid with millions of bricks piled on top of each other, with no structural integrity, but just done by brute force and thousands of slaves. -- Alan Kay
pgpya0QpHNyf9.pgp
Description: PGP signature
