[nendroid]

It does. You're completely and utterly wrong. You don't understand.

I'll reiterate my example a SQL string is pure. Just like the IO monad is pure. However when you're coding the sql string in your "pure" haskell program you have to account for imperative side effects related to the SQL itself.

   sqlString = "UPDATE X SET X.Y=2 WHERE X.Z = 1"

sqlString is technically "pure" but that doesn't mean you can treat the UPDATE command in the string as a pure concept.

It doesn't matter how "pure" your language or sqlString is... the concept of a mutation leaks over into the language and the programmer still has to deal with the concept.

Like you're original post said. The interpretation of the monad is different, and the programmer still needs to account for this in how he composes things together. The concept leaks across boundaries.

edit>>this whole karma thing is unfair. Posters can't vote down responses. I simply state my opinion the person responds then votes me down because he disagrees. What's the point of even having a discussion?

[nimish]

You can make your point without the theatrics.

This is a philosophical distinction, not an objective fact.

I do not consider sqlString to be impure. It’s a perfectly valid string. I consider `executeQuery sqlString :: IO Result` to be an indication of impurity, since I can do `let x = executeQuery sqlString in “bar”` as a valid bit of Haskell but it’s clearly 100% pure.

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?)

I think you’re getting downvoted (I can’t) because of your first statement.

[nendroid]

>I think you’re getting downvoted (I can’t) because of your first statement.

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 "

Is a valid "pure" string, but will trigger a syntax error in your database. You have to account for all of this within your "pure" program. Haskell eliminates side effects in the category Hask but does not actually eliminate the need for YOU to deal with those side effects. This part is an objective fact.

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]

I have over 14,000 karma. I can't downvote (direct) replies to my posts. So as far as HN mechanics go, you are falsely accusing nimish.

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]

No it's not that. Even in posts where I just state logical reasons for disagreement I get voted down in this thread.

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.

[AnimalMuppet]

I've been here for seven years. You've been here for a month (at least with these accounts). And you're telling me why you're getting downvoted.

I'm trying to help you. You're not listening.

[nendroid]

I've been here for over 10. I've had accounts with lots of karma generated by simply agreeing with everything I read or just commenting with useless side suggestions. T

I've experimented a lot. Without changing tone just disagreeing with a popular opinion is all that you need to get voted down. I've even experimented with emotionally charged impolite popular opinions. People will vote you up just because they agree.

If I wanted a shitload of karma. I know how to get it. Removing one or two of the more "expressive" sentences above will in my experience not do much for a thread that is very very biasedly supporting FP. FP is great, I prefer it but most people cannot maintain such neutrality for their favorite paradigm. Or favorite anything for that matter.

Not to mention if you recall a while back someone posted a GPT-3 AI generated story that got voted to the front page. Most commenters didn't realize it was AI generated. A select few were able to figure it out and they posted comments that were vehemently voted down for not being in agreement with the general sentiment. HN is a technical crowd but they are not above common mob behavior.

https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/16/21371049/gpt3-hacker-news...

Scroll down to the picture. The person stated facts but his facts were misinterpreted to be attacks and he was told to be civil by someone who thought of himself as level headed. The reality is that the levelheaded person is as biased as one can get.

You think you're helping me. You think I'm putting up stubborn resistance to your help. Is that the case or am I just simply describing to you some of the insight I've gotten from messing around with HN for over a decade? Did I in fact put up stubborn resistance or am I just conversing with you and stating a disagreement? Hard to say.

Your immediate assumptions are no different than the "levelheaded" dude from earlier. Let's just be clear, I'm fully aware of the "expressive" areas in my posts.

You will also note that many of the posters assumed I'm attacking FP and that I don't have much experience with FP. All wrong assumptions. I have lots of experience and I prefer FP over other paradigms. I am simply stating that I disagree with the fact that algebra is the future of programming and can replace all imperative programming.