<div dir="ltr">I tend to see OO subtyping and heterogeneous collections as more an impediment to (pure) functional integration with the "rest-of-the-world" than state. There are a lot of quality wrappers to stateful C libraries from Haskell, but few to object oriented C++ or Objective C libraries. <br>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 11 August 2013 16:10, Philippe Sismondi <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:psismondi@arqux.com" target="_blank">psismondi@arqux.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
<div class="im"><br></div>
<br>
As a result of this little thread I have come to another conclusion, and this is just my subjective view. Most of the software that I am interested in seems to live most comfortably with a stateful conception of the world. (The native libraries I find most useful certainly are stateful.) I am reasonably competent with monads and monad transformers in Haskell. But, to be honest, after three years of pluggin away at Haskell, I am not the least convinced that the problem of handling a changing external world in a pure functional language has been successfully solved by those techniques. I always feel as though I am using the robot arm on a space shuttle when a screwdriver would do. (Again, no need to rebut this - I may be wrong or just to stupid to use Haskell effectively - so be it.)<br>
<br>
Perhaps in the end I do not really believe that functional programming is the panacea that its devotees claim it to be.<br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>