Python-based monads essay (Re: Assignment versus binding)
Steven D'Aprano
steve+comp.lang.python at pearwood.info
Wed Oct 12 04:29:04 EDT 2016
On Sunday 09 October 2016 18:48, Gregory Ewing wrote:
> Here's the first part of the essay I said I'd write about
> monads:
>
>
http://www.cosc.canterbury.ac.nz/greg.ewing/essays/monads/DemystifyingMonads.html
Quoting from the essay:
"the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of the state object –
which obviously allows considerable gains in efficiency, both in time and
memory usage – without giving up any functional purity."
Surely that should be as follows?
"the implementation is free to use in-place mutations of the state object –
which obviously allows considerable gains in efficiency, both in time and
memory usage – without letting anyone know that the implementation has given up
any functional purity."
I'm inclined to agree with James Hague (via John Cook): functional programming
is great, until you try to be strict about it. The closer you get to 100%
functional, the less you can use it. He reckons the sweet spot is about 85%
functional:
http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2010/04/15/85-functional-language-purity/
--
Steven
git gets easier once you get the basic idea that branches are homeomorphic
endofunctors mapping submanifolds of a Hilbert space.
More information about the Python-list
mailing list