Okay...I think I am beginning to understand. Is it right to assume that "magic" is backed by FFI and cannot be done in "pure" Haskell?
On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:47 PM, Ketil Malde <ke...@malde.org> wrote: > C K Kashyap <ckkash...@gmail.com> writes: > > > I looked at State Monad yesterday and this question popped into my mind. > > From what I gather State Monad essentially allows the use of Haskell's do > > notation to "invisibly" pass around a state. So, does the use of Monadic > > style fetch us more than syntactic convenience? > > At it's heart, monads are "just" syntactic convenience, but like many > other syntactic conveniences, allows you to structure your code better. > Thus it's more about programmer efficiency than program efficiency. > (The "do notation" is syntactic sugar for >>= and >>). > > > Again, if I understand correctly, in Mutable Arrays also, is anything > > getting modified in place really? If not, what is the real reason for > better > > efficiency? > > STArray and IOArrays are "magic", and uses monads to ensure a sequence > of execution to allow (and implement) in-place modification. So this > gives you better performance in many cases. Don't expect this from > generic monads. > > -k > -- > If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants > _______________________________________________ > Haskell-Cafe mailing list > Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe > -- Regards, Kashyap
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
