[Haskell-cafe] On the purity of Haskell

[Artyom Kazak]

Donn Cave <donn at avvanta.com> писал(а) в своём письме Fri, 30 Dec 2011  
20:36:46 +0200:

> That's why we use terms in a sense that apply meaningfully to computer
> programming languages in general and Haskell in particular.  To do
> otherwise - for example to insist on a definition of "pure" that could
> not even in principle apply to any useful programming language, or a
> definition of "side effect" that would have to apply every time a
> program does anything - seems to me like an inane waste of time, to
> put it mildly.

When one questions accepted definitions or beliefs, it is the sign of
their vagueness. To be honest, the definitions of “side effect” and
“purity” are vague indeed. I hope that eventually (probably in this
very discussion) they will be refined.