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 p07KTaMV010454 for ; Fri, 7 Jan 2011 21:29:36 +0100 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: ApoAAFoGJ03RVdQ2kGdsb2JhbACVa444CBUBAQEBCQkMBxEEIKQtlm2FTASEZ4Yi X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.60,290,1291590000"; d="scan'208";a="86298540" Received: from mail-vw0-f54.google.com ([209.85.212.54]) by mail2-smtp-roc.national.inria.fr with ESMTP; 07 Jan 2011 21:29:31 +0100 Received: by vws9 with SMTP id 9so7215481vws.27 for ; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.220.203.75 with SMTP id fh11mr7669037vcb.91.1294432170576; Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:29:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from osx.som.umaryland.edu ([134.192.133.172]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p8sm5809710vcr.18.2011.01.07.12.29.28 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:29:28 -0800 (PST) Cc: David Rajchenbach-Teller , Damien Doligez , Dario Teixeira , caml-list@inria.fr Message-Id: <7B166A75-88A4-41BC-A26F-A2CC8B6E30FC@ezabel.com> From: orbitz@ezabel.com To: Eray Ozkural In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v936) Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 15:29:27 -0500 References: <699537.6718.qm@web111509.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <41A45D6B-C556-4D60-BA6F-423B60E3A137@univ-orleans.fr> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.936) Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Purity and lazyness I believe you are thinking of 'Timber'? On Jan 7, 2011, at 3:22 PM, Eray Ozkural wrote: > On Fri, Jan 7, 2011 at 6:38 PM, David Rajchenbach-Teller > wrote: > 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". > > > There was a strict compiler for Haskell, whatever happened to it? > Most times I found it cumbersome to deal with the performance > effects of default laziness. > > Best, > > -- > Eray Ozkural, PhD candidate. Comp. Sci. Dept., Bilkent University, > Ankara > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ai-philosophy > http://myspace.com/arizanesil http://myspace.com/malfunct >