Tony Morris

@dibblego @mwotton The point is that you can give monadic semantics to a language with mutable ref cells, so the word pure is meaningless

@takeoutweight @mwotton You are now trying to describe "languages" as pure? Yes, another futile exercise in unicornery.

@dibblego @mwotton Osaki uses the term pure to describe languages. Anyway I'm looking for a peer reviewed ref for proper usage if one exists

@takeoutweight @mwotton There is no possible situation where your claim about "state" and "monad" and "mutable ref" is sensible.

@dibblego It is sensible. Monads give denotational semantics to mutable refs. What semantics could State have that are "more equational?"

@takeoutweight Kleisli is a profunctor, therefore, "pure" is meaningless. Similarly ridiculous statement.

@dibblego Anyway if we agree "pure" is meaningless here and it's a term used only informally without a formal treatment we have no quarrel

@takeoutweight it is a synonym for a formally described concept. No I don't agree. You are misusing way too many terms to solicit agreement.