"Don Syme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote, > One point is that in the absence of extensive purity > annotations to imperative libraries you will need to use > monads for operations that shouldn't need them. Having to > add the annotations certainly counts as a complication in > comparison to what many other languages have to do on > .NET.
That's certainly not a .NET-specific issue and it sounds a bit like the arguments against statically-typed languages while everybody else thought that without dynamic typing languages are too restricted. > As for monads, this is hardly the place to go into an > argument about their relative merits re. all those > slightly more widespread approaches to imperative > programming. If you think driving imperative libraries > using monads will be so great then a Haskell.NET would > certainly be a perfect place to try out that theory. As I said, this is hardly .NET-specific and we have had no problems with huge libraries, such as GTK+ and HOpenGL. Manuel _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell
