Back

@Amirography interesting. Can you elaborate a bit about what you consider "full FP" in this case ?

It might help explain both the responses/answers and shed light on why you find it frustrating :)

@lloydmeta by that I mean pure. And let me emphasize that I'm not asking for pure. But the mention of an FP style (or the best I can get) only gets warning about pure FP. Which was not what I was asking for.

@Amirography Gotcha…and what exactly is meant by “pure FP” in this sense? I kinda have an idea, but want to make sure I’m on the same page here, since often the definition differs based on context, as well as who is reading and writing those words..

@lloydmeta Side effects-less functions up until "main" and no use of mutability.

@Amirography. It’s what I thought, given FP zeitgeist and what Rust can enable :D

While I don’t necessarily agree that you should be discouraged from “pure FP” when you ask for “FP”, I can see why ppl would warn/discourage the former, given that safe/tracked mutation is literally part of the language. You *can* wrap it but you end up paying in terms of complexity/perf.

Embracing `mut` does require some relearning for FP diehards, so maybe they wanted to be up front about it.

@Amirography I think that’s a great call! Haskell is a great place for learning/stealing FP patterns that can then be applied in other places :)