From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr (mail2-relais-roc.national.inria.fr [192.134.164.83]) by walapai.inria.fr (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id p07GcGQE001884 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:16 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApkBAHLQJk3Cpx5emWdsb2JhbACkKBYBAgEICwoHESS7WIVMBI4nGg X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,289,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="86287656" Received: from sucre.univ-orleans.fr ([194.167.30.94]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2011 17:38:07 +0100 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sucre.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 149D094470; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from sucre.univ-orleans.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (sucre.univ-orleans.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ylVTnlU7iUxm; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:08 +0100 (CET) Received: from smtps.univ-orleans.fr (smtps.univ-orleans.fr [194.167.30.152]) by sucre.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id E6B0F9441C; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:07 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (unknown [213.144.210.93]) by smtps.univ-orleans.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7EBF436E60; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:10 +0100 (CET) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1082) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii From: David Rajchenbach-Teller In-Reply-To: Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 17:38:06 +0100 Cc: Dario Teixeira , caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: <41A45D6B-C556-4D60-BA6F-423B60E3A137@univ-orleans.fr> References: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> To: Damien Doligez X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1082) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by walapai.inria.fr id p07GcGQE001884 Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness Correct me if I'm wrong, but I wouldn't classify Erlang as "pure": sending and receiving messages -- which are two of the most important primitives in Erlang -- are definitely side-effects. Also, asynchronous error-checking, Mnesia, etc. look quite impure to me. I also vaguely remember Simon Peyton-Jones declaring something along the lines of "The next Haskell will be strict". Cheers, David On Jan 7, 2011, at 5:07 PM, Damien Doligez wrote: > > On 2011-01-07, at 16:35, Dario Teixeira wrote: > >> So, my question is whether there is something I'm missing and in fact "purity >> <=> lazyness", or I am reading too much from those Haskeller presentations, >> because they never meant to say anything beyond "lazyness => purity", and >> freely mixing the two was just a casual oversight. > > > For an example of a pure non-lazy language, have a look at Erlang. > > -- Damien