<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Dec 10, 2009 at 4:15 PM, John D. Earle <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:JohnDEarle@cox.net">JohnDEarle@cox.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div style="padding-left:10px;padding-right:10px;padding-top:15px" name="Compose message area">
<div><font size="4" face="LM Mono 12"><font size="4" face="LM Mono 12">To elaborate
there is another language that is also a functional language. I won't mention
the name so as not to offend anyone. It too is effect free, that is what makes
it functional and it is a functional language in the true sense of the term, but
it is not effect free in the sense that Haskell is effect free. This other
language is effect free in every practical sense whereas Haskell is effect free
in a strict sense.</font></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why would anyone be offended? I'd prefer if you tried to be clear about what you mean, rather than intentionally obscure your points to avoid causing offence. Be specific. What language? How is it different than Haskell w.r.t. purity? </div>
</div><br>-- <br>Sebastian Sylvan<br>