(no title)
nendroid | 5 years ago
nobody is reading this stuff anymore. It's just you and me. You have over 800 karma. You CAN downvote and you ARE. There is no theatrics, you're just voting me down, stop.
>I do not consider sqlString to be impure.
It's not "impure." But it doesn't change the fact the way you you write your SQL has imperative side effects within the database. You can trigger a deadlock in the database from within your pure haskell code if you wanted to.
It's not a philosophical thing. You absolutely have to consider imperative side effects even in your pure program.
That is reality. The philosophical part is whether you can call it "pure" or "impure."
>If you want to think that sqlString is “impure” outside of the context of execution (i.o.w. a Monad...) then sure, that’s valid, but so is my assertion that it is pure since it is referentially transparent. It exists in the void as just another string until the programmer decides to make it into an IO value that’s executed for its impure side effects (the only reason we do anything in computing, right?)
Yeah so? I never said your assertion was wrong. I never said that it was "impure." But I did say that you have to account for side effects in your program. Example:
sqlString = "SELECT * FROM ASKDLSADSA DFLDSJFL DLSKFJSDLKFD SDLFKSDJF DSLKFJSDF SDFKLSDFJ "
Here's a better way to put it. For this specific example, the impurity of the real world leaks into your pure haskell program by affecting the contents of the string. The type itself can be seperate from the real world but the contents of the string reflects knowledge and impurity from the real world.
AnimalMuppet|5 years ago
Other people - not nimish - are downvoting you. And they're doing so because you're starting to cross the line from "disagreeing" to "aggressive and rude".
Now for what it's worth, I'm kind of on your side of the actual dispute. I just think you're pushing the line in trying to be more, um, "expressive".
nerdtime|5 years ago
People vote down what they disagree with, if they agreed with me, most peoples' biases would usually find my attitude appropriate.
If I said something like logically I feel a certain race is inferior genetically. People will vote that statement down purely out of disagreement and misinterpret it as an emotionally charged statement and illogical.
It's just a statement with no logic behind it. It's dead pan with nothing. You can't even find erroneous logic with it because the logic wasn't even spelled out. You can only technically disagree with the statement. But people will subconsciously add all sorts of embellishment.
That's how people work. Maybe Nimish didn't vote me down, but they certainly aren't voting me down because I'm crossing some sort of line. They're voting me down because they disagree. That's the majority of it.
You'll find that more than anything the majority of what I write are just dead pan responses with like 5% of the sentences being "expressive." In fact a great number of stuff that I write that gets voted down is just dead pan responses with zero "expressiveness."
It's because people can't tell the difference between someone disagreeing with them and an actual attack. That's human nature. We all think we're above it, but basically none of us are. You'll find that even you are like this.
The reason why I get voted down is because my opinions tend to be different than most people. So people interpret this disagreement as an attack.