News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform. Parent comment

Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jbooth on Thursday November 13, 2014 @12:58AM (#8600151)
Point being, I/O doesn't square with that concept. For some reason, every time I point this out, I'm accused of not appreciating the beauty of pure functions. I love pure functions. Maybe they're not appreciating the ugly reality of I/O?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by codygman on Friday November 14, 2014 @07:26AM (#8606797)
How much experience do you have composing I/O in Haskell to prove that I/O doesn't square with that concept? Others here have experience using Haskell with I/O, but you just seem to have a hypothesis without experience or examples to support it.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by dragonwriter on Thursday November 13, 2014 @01:00AM (#8600162)
> Point being, I/O doesn't square with that concept.

Sure it does, and composes well under it.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by jbooth on Thursday November 13, 2014 @01:03AM (#8600171)
I'm seeing I/O as "side effects with possible random error conditions". I really don't see how that squares with functional purity.

It's late on EST but I promise if you put effort into explaining a higher-order take on this I'll put effort into reading and understanding it tomorrow. Have a good night.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Microsoft takes .NET open source and cross-platform by codygman on Thursday November 13, 2014 @02:05PM (#8603369)
Through monads functional purity with I/O is achieved, ergo you can compose I/O and get other advantages of purity.
[ Parent | on HN ]