<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.18865"></HEAD>
<BODY style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; PADDING-RIGHT: 10px; PADDING-TOP: 15px"
id=MailContainerBody leftMargin=0 topMargin=0 CanvasTabStop="true"
name="Compose message area">
<DIV><FONT size=4 face="LM Mono 12">This is a matter that I genuinely at the
present time do not grasp and I am hoping that some of you who are more familiar
with the Haskell language may be able to help enlighten me. I feel the question
to be an important one. What material benefit does Haskell derive from being a
"pure" functional language as opposed to an impure one? Please provide examples
as I require instruction.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face="LM Mono 12"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face="LM Mono 12">The following is what I believe to be true
at the present time. It seems to be that the decision was made because it was a
matter of taste under the belief that computer scientists can and often are
superstitious and their superstitions can and often do materially interfere
with progress. What I am saying is that at the present time perhaps due to
my ignorance I am unfamiliar with how this benefits the language in a material
sense. It appears to be a philosophical matter, a matter of identity, what
Haskell stands for.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face="LM Mono 12"></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=4 face="LM Mono 12">The sort of decision that Apple computer and
Microsoft made not to go down the POSIX road seems relevant. Historically, Apple
did not embrace POSIX. Windows continues to stand for Windows, that is the
graphical user interface.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>