On 4/26/2012 1:13, Invisible wrote:
> OK. And I was just saying that Haskell /already/ lets you use libraries
> written in C, which aren't functional at all.

And can the C call back into the Haskell? And if so, are all the Haskell 
invariants and such maintained? And can you do that without telling the 
caller whether they're calling C or compiled Haskell?

> What I /meant/ to write was that you start a transaction, fetch the next
> work item, and then end the transaction. Once the transaction is over, you
> can do as much I/O as you like.

Right. But if "fetch the transaction" means "obtain it from the server over 
there using TCP/IP", then you're kind of screwed, aren't you?

Heck, even a regular expression match isn't functional in .NET.

> The problem (I assume) that you're talking about is that all the existing
> .NET stuff is structured under the assumption that you can do I/O whenever
> you feel like it. I can see a few ways to approach that. (Perhaps the
> simplest possibility being "only Haskell is allows to use STM". :-P )

And that's the kind of incompatibility I'm saying makes .NET much less useful.

-- 
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
   "Oh no! We're out of code juice!"
   "Don't panic. There's beans and filters
    in the cabinet."

Post a reply to this message