DDC compiler and effects; better than Haskell? (was Re: [Haskell-cafe] unsafeDestructiveAssign?)

[Peter Verswyvelen]

Is this really the case? Or is just hard to implement?

I mean, if...then...else is always kind of lazy in it's 2nd and 3rd
argument, but I think DDC handles this correctly even with the
presence of side effects (not sure, but it has a little presentation
about it: http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/Ben.Lippmeier/talks/poisoning-20090618.pdf)

And it's still possible to reason about a function with side effects
in DDC since the side effects are visible in the type signature (you
might need a good editor that shows you the inferred signatures, as
done with F#). I mean it's possible to reason about monadic ST or IO
no? I agree it's hard to reason about code that is not honest about
side effects in its type signature.

So couldn't this be generalized? If might completely miss the point
here since I'm not at all academic, I'm an old school imperative
hacker.








On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:51 PM, Robin Green<greenrd at greenrd.org> wrote:
> As was just pointed out in the unsafeDestructiveAssign thread from which
> this thread was forked, effects are incompatible with non-strict
> evaluation. The compiler is supposed to be able to reorder non-strict
> evaluation to do optimisations, but that can't be done if effects
> could happen. Also, effects would destroy modular reasoning.
> --
> Robin
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe at haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
>