[email protected]
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why?

Subject: Re: [Haskell-cafe] Why?
From: Jason Dusek
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 2009 15:55:16 -0800
2009/12/10 Luke Palmer <[email protected]>:
> I always meet with armies of resistance when I say this...

  The troops arrive.

> ...but unsafePerformIO should die a horrible, unforgiven
> death. "Well what if you want blah blah blah with a pure
> interface?" My response:Âtoo fscking bad!

  Wouldn't removing `unsafePerformIO` just force us, in many
  cases, to write the same thing in C and then import it? Or
  would you amend the FFI so "math.h sin" could not be imported
  pure?

  There are plenty of bad ways to use `unsafePerformIO`, this is
  true; but as we already have a tool for binding to native code
  in a way that trusts it to be pure, I don't see how having a
  way to bind to nominally side-effecting Haskell code in a way
  that trusts it to be pure adds anything to our troubles.

--
Jason Dusek
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>