FOLLOW THE SIMPLE RULES

http://lisperati.com/landoflisp/

I'm sure everyone on /#haskell/ /prog/ has seen this already but I didn't find a reference to it in my cursory evaluation of this board's activity from the past year or two (ie. by glancing at the front page; anything else would require side effects).

http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/references/haskell/haskell-intro-html/io.html
So, in the end, has Haskell simply re-invented the imperative wheel?

In some sense, yes. The I/O monad constitutes a small imperative sub-language inside Haskell, and thus the I/O component of a program may appear similar to ordinary imperative code. But there is one important difference: There is no special semantics that the user needs to deal with. In particular, equational reasoning in Haskell is not compromised. The imperative feel of the monadic code in a program does not detract from the functional aspect of Haskell. An experienced functional programmer should be able to minimize the imperative component of the program, only using the I/O monad for a minimal amount of top-level sequencing. The monad cleanly separates the functional and imperative program components. In contrast, imperative languages with functional subsets do not generally have any well-defined barrier between the purely functional and imperative worlds.



_________________________________________________
http://xs135.xs.to/xs135/09042/av922.jpg
Velox Et Astrum gamedev forum: http://etastrum.phpbb3now.com
However, this campaign is not about killing Spartacus. It is to kill the legend of Spartacus.