[Haskell-cafe] Channel9 Interview: Software Composability and the Future of Languages

[Bulat Ziganshin]

Hello Tim,

Saturday, January 27, 2007, 6:14:01 AM, you wrote:

> He brings up a very good point.  Using a monad lets you deal with
> side effects but also forces the programmer to specify an exact
> ordering.

1. it's just a *syntax* issue. at least, ML's solution can be applied:

x <- .y + .z

where "." is an explicit dereferencing operator (readIORef)

2. it bites me too. it's why i say that C++ is better imperative
language than Haskell. there are also many other similar issues, such
as lack of good syntax for "for", "while", "break" and other
well-known statements, inability to use "return" inside of block and
so on


-- 
Best regards,
 Bulat                            mailto:Bulat.Ziganshin at gmail.com