[Haskell-cafe] Why purely in haskell?

[Don Stewart]

anton:
> Don Stewart wrote:
> >anton:
> >>OTOH, the freedom to change things on the fly can be nice to have, and 
> >>if used with "great responsibility" (mainly an understanding of what's 
> >>safe to do and what isn't), the downside can be vanishingly small.
> >
> >It can be small, unless you need to have any kind of static assurance
> >(say for high assurance software, or for new kinds of optimisations, or
> >if you want to reorder code in the compiler for parallelism).
> >
> >Then the downside to arbitrary, untracked effects in the system is huge.
> 
> Oh dear - I'm going to have to rethink the paper I was working on, 
> provisionally titled "In defense of arbitrary untracked effects in high 
> assurance software."  ;)

That would be an awesome paper :)

-- Don