Except that definition totally ignores system layering, staged computation, communication betweeen systems. I’m sure you use a monad or 1000
-
-
Replying to @BrandonBloom @djspiewak and
Presumably, you designed your monads to encapsulate state with substantial overlap in design principals
@joeerl would recognize/advocate.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @djspiewak and
At best, implementation “purity” is about keeping your options open for more flexible uses of logical impurity.
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
I understand what you're saying, but I would say the scope of "logical impurity" is much smaller than it would seem.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I’d view this another way: purity is more capable at modeling impurity that it would initially seem.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @djspiewak and
And yes, I’d love to see more real systems that demonstrate that fact. However:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @djspiewak and
I’d argue that all the same problems you encounter with impure languages, you’ll encounter with a badly designed monad, arrow, whatever.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Your statement is the higher-order corolary to "you can write shitty code in any language". :-) And just as true.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
To this end, is designing an imperative/functional language with two core design principals that are relevant to this discussion:
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @BrandonBloom @djspiewak and
1) all ephemeral data structures can be efficiently made persistent and vice versa
2 replies 1 retweet 1 like
My 2012 paper suggests that in a language with linear logic, pure and stateful are metaprogrammatically isomorphic.https://github.com/fare/lil-ilc2012 …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
Read my blog!