re: Is Haskell bad for FP? VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: Purity is tied to compilation and static typing, almost by necessity. While I have no idea how a pure language that is dynamically typed would look...

Purity is tied to compilation and static typing, almost by necessity.

function addOne (x) {
  return 1 + x
}

How is this impure?

You might be able to make a pure functions, if you don't consider type errors to be side effects (which I do if they don't require explicit catching, which is unlikely in a dynamic language), but that doesn't make the entirety of the language pure.
How are you going to represent effects? As you pointed out you will need at some point. Untyped monads? A framework like TEA but error resistant?

So, you might be able to do it, but it's going to be a bit awkward at least, which is why I said "almost by necessity".

code of conduct - report abuse