[racket] Pure functional Racket

5 hours ago, Cesar Barata wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> I would like to know if there's any Racket language that enforces
> pure funcional programming like Haskell does.  I thought that using
> the "Languages as libraries" nature of Racket to provide a pure
> funcional language would be really useful to achieve a clean
> separation of pure modules and impure ones.  Integration with typed
> and/or lazy racket would also be great.

How would it be useful?  (Not a rhetoric question.)

The only thing I can think of is making it easy to refactor code, but
that doesn't look like it's enough of an advantage to make up a new
language.

Note, BTW, that making a language that is *completely* side-effect
free can be a little tricky.  For example, you'd need to either forbid
`require' or implement one that cannot get any non-pure code in, since
you should forbid pure code from calling out to impure functions.  As
Matthias said, the lazy language is impure too -- and it's related to
this: if you want it to be completely pure then you need to give up
being able to call out to non-pure code, which means that you lose
interoperability.  (Or you need to somehow organize access to the
impure code as in monads or similar things.)

-- 
          ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x)))          Eli Barzilay:
                    http://barzilay.org/                   Maze is Life!