Will Haskell be commercialized in the future?
Mon, 27 Nov 2000 20:26:50 -0800
At 2000-11-27 19:52, Tyson Dowd wrote:
>On 27-Nov-2000, Adrian Hey <email@example.com> wrote:
>> On Mon 27 Nov, Fergus Henderson wrote:
>> > Do you think that Haskell would be better without `unsafePerformIO'?
>> Well, a sceptic like me is bound to wonder why such a non-function is
>> provided in a purely functional language. What really worries me is
>> that the damage isn't localised. If you allow such things you can never be
>> sure that any function really is a function, without careful scrutiny of all
>> the code it's dependent on.
>This is an issue, but it arises in any "pure" language with a foreign
Not necessarily, the functions just need to be typed correctly. In the
case of a non-safe or imperative function, that's going to be of the
form "a -> IO b" (or "IO a -> IO b" if you prefer the more powerful arrow
No safety needs to be sacrificed.
Ashley Yakeley, Seattle WA