See also this paper:
Verifiable Functional Purity in Java
http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~daw/papers/pure-ccs08.pdfAnd:
http://code.google.com/p/joe-e/If you look at what they went through with joe-e you will get a taste of
how big the job is here. Like a lot of things, it's a nice idea but who
is going to do the work?
On Fri, Jun 26, 2009 at 03:30:17PM +0100, Scot McSweeney-Roberts wrote:
> For me, "better Java". So "functional purity" isn't that important
> (or, to be honest, needed).
Are we not yet tired of building on sand? Computer software is pitifully
unreliable compared to any kind of real engineering. Scala pushes hard
in one of the key areas for improving this situation (types) but this
one is at least as important.
--
Paul Phillips | If this is raisin, make toast with it.
Stickler |
Empiricist |
pal, i pill push |----------*
http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
