Re: Naming convention to identify functions with side effects

["(see below)" <yaldnif.w@blueyonder.co.uk>]

On 11/10/2008 18:49, in article
48f0e72d$0$6599$9b4e6d93@newsspool3.arcor-online.net, "Georg Bauhaus"
<rm.tsoh.plus-bug.bauhaus@maps.futureapps.de> wrote:

> (see below) wrote:
... 
>> I had a very distinguished group of them as colleagues for nearly 15 years,
>> so I am only too aware of their profound misunderstanding of what computers
>> are actually for.
> 
> Maybe Simon Peyton Jones has finally found a way to
> make real computers visible to scientists with a preference
> for world-excluding static functions. In
>  "Tackling the Awkward Squad" (2005) he introduces Haskell
> as "the world's finest imperative programming language"
> using monads), drawing attention to I/O ("I/O is the raison d'�tre
> of every program. ---a program that had no observable effect
> whatsoever (no input, no output) would not be very useful."),
> error detection and recovery, concurrency, and interfacing to
> components of the OS or written in other languages.
> 
> Maybe computer operations need declarative paint and a
> mathematical superstructure more abstract than that of
> IF and GOTO in order to be on a CS teacher's radar?

He always was good at spin. 8-)

-- 
Bill Findlay
<surname><forename> chez blueyonder.co.uk