Beautiful functional programming

[wiz]

If you program with cartesian closed categories in mind, then it’s functional.
If you rely on separation logic, then it is imperative.
Easy!

[tomjaguarpaw]

Can you say something about separation logic and how it connects to the intuitive understanding of “imperative”?

[bolt12]

What does

program with cartesian closed categories in mind

(emphasis added by me) even mean? Also why does for FP is enough to have CCC in mind but for imperative programming you have to rely on separation logic?

[george.fst]

That seems of fairly marginal utility compared to -XRecordWildCards.

[wiz]

@bolt12

(emphasis added by me) even mean?

Because Hask isn’t a true category and you’d get ridiculed for talking about it like that

@bolt12

Also why does for FP is enough to have CCC in mind but for imperative programming you have to rely on separation logic?

There’s a thread about that

Why imperative code is worse than functional code

Continuing the discussion from Beautiful functional programming: @tomjaguarpaw asks the question why people think imperative code is worse than functional code. I think that is an interesting discussion topic. First of all, I personally wouldn’t really say functional, but instead denotative. My inspiration for striving for denotative code comes from the podcast and ZuriHac presentation of @conal. He can explain it much better than me in a short discourse post: [Conal Elliott on "…

/jk

[bolt12]

My questions were more of provocative nature you can program in any paradigm with separation logic or CCC in mind and that doesn’t make it any different