[Haskell-cafe] On the purity of Haskell

[Bardur Arantsson]

On 12/30/2011 10:10 PM, Steve Horne wrote:
> On 30/12/2011 10:47, Bardur Arantsson wrote:
>> On 12/29/2011 11:06 PM, Steve Horne wrote:
> Calling it a straw man won't convince anyone who has the scars from
> being attacked by those "straw men".
>
> I've been in those arguments, being told that C has side-effects
> therefore all C programs are full of bugs, whereas Haskell can't have
> similar bugs because it doesn't have side-effects.
[--snip--]

Please stop or quote someone.

>
> I'm really not interested in whose-side-are-you-on arguments. Trying to
> keep the two definitions separate is relevant, and that was my
> motivation for saying this - it's a fact that if you mix your
> definitions up enough you can "prove" anything.
>

Yes, and if you throw up enough verbiage or move goalposts enough you 
(impersonal) can tire anyone. That doesn't prove anything.

> I like C++. I recognise the flaws in C++, as every everyday-user of the
> language must. Pretending they don't exist doesn't solve the issues -
> it's for OTT advocates, not developers. I don't insist that every
> virtuous-sounding term must apply to C++. I don't pretend every C++
> advocate is an angel.

I dislike C++. There's one reason for that: "Undefined behavior". 
Haskell still has some of that, but as long as you steer clear of 
unsafePerformIO, you're mostly good.

> I like Haskell. I can't claim to be an everyday user, but I'm learning
> more and using it more all the time. I'm still uncertain whether some
> flaws I see are real - some that I used to see weren't - but I'll
> address that over time by thinking and debating. I won't pretend every
> Haskell advocate is an angel.

I really don't care if you like or dislike Haskell, nor does anyone else 
AFAICT. Thinking is good. Debating is also fine as long as you're 
prepared to listen what people are saying.

[--snip--]

Conal Elliot was right -- at least about the debate part :)

That really *is* my last post on this thread.