There WAS a video on yt by a Norwegian man on why OO languages push people into spreading side-effects throughout the code, whereas in Haskell, side-effects are optimally conserved to Main.hs
I can’t find that video, now.
He was on stage, a talk of some kind, not as formal as a university-lecture, so it was some conference, of some kind… ( in case anybody else finds it )
I think that that principle is contradicting what the article is saying… ( skimmed the rest, I think he’s generally right, but burying side-effects seems to be wrong, from Haskell’s perspective, & I think Haskell’s right, generally. )
< sigh >
There WAS a video on yt by a Norwegian man on why OO languages push people into spreading side-effects throughout the code, whereas in Haskell, side-effects are optimally conserved to Main.hs
I can’t find that video, now.
He was on stage, a talk of some kind, not as formal as a university-lecture, so it was some conference, of some kind… ( in case anybody else finds it )
I think that that principle is contradicting what the article is saying… ( skimmed the rest, I think he’s generally right, but burying side-effects seems to be wrong, from Haskell’s perspective, & I think Haskell’s right, generally. )
_ /\ _