John D. Earle wrote:
What material benefit does Haskell derive from being a "pure" functional language as opposed to an impure one?
1. Code optimisation becomes radically easier. The compiler can make very drastic alterations to your program, and not chance its meaning. (For that matter, the programmer can more easily chop the code around too...)
2. Purity leads more or less directly to laziness, which has several benefits:
2a. Unecessary work can potentially be avoided. (E.g., instead of a function for getting the first solution to an equation and a seperate function to generate *all* the solutions, you can just write the latter and laziness gives you the former by magic.)
2b. You can define brand new flow control constructs *inside* the language itself. (E.g., in Java, a "for" loop is a built-in language construct. In Haskell, "for" is a function in Control.Monad. Just a plain ordinary function that anybody could write.)
2c. The algorithms for generating data, selecting data and processing data can be seperated. (Normally you'd have to hard-wire the stopping condition into the function that generates the data, but with lazy "infinite" data structures, you can seperate it out.)
2d. Parallel computation. This turns out to be more tricky than you'd think, but it's leaps and bounds easier than in most imperative languages.
3. It's much harder to accidentally screw things up by modifying a piece of data from one part of the program which another part is still actually using. (This is somewhat similar to how garbage collection makes it harder to free data that's still in use.)
That's at least 6 really huge reasons why purity is a massive win. _______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
