On 29/12/2011 21:01, Chris Smith wrote: 
On Thu, 2011-12-29 at 18:07 +0000, Steve Horne wrote:

By definition, an intentional effect is a side-effect. To me, it's by 
deceptive redefinition - and a lot of arguments rely on mixing 
definitions - but nonetheless the jargon meaning is correct within 
programming and has been for decades. It's not going to go away.

Basically, the jargon definition was coined by one of the pioneers of 
function programming - he recognised a problem and needed a simple way 
to describe it, but in some ways the choice of word is unfortunate.

I don't believe this is true.  "Side effect" refers to having a FUNCTION
-- that is, a map from input values to output values -- such that when
it is evaluated there is some effect in addition to computing the
resulting value from that map.  The phrase "side effect" refers to a
very specific confusion: namely, conflating the performing of effects
with computing the values of functions.
Yes - again, by definition that is true. But that definition is not the everyday definition of side-effect. Repeating and explaining one definition doesn't make the other go away.
  1. To say that the C printf function has the side-effect of printing to the screen - that's true.
  2. To say that the C printf function has no side-effects because it works correctly - the only effects are intentional - that's also true.
Two definitions of side-effect. The definition used for case 2 is a lot older than the definition used for case 1, and remains valid. It's the normal usage that most people are familiar with everywhere - not just in programming and computer science.

I haven't failed to understand either definition - I simply accept that both are valid. Natural language is ambiguous - sad fact of life.

Using similar mixed definitions to conclude that every C program is full of bugs (basically equating intentional effects with side-effects, then equating side-effects with unintentional bugs) is a fairly common thing in my experience, but it's a logical fallacy. If you aren't aware of the two definitions of side-effect, it's hard to get deal with that.

Some people don't want anyone to figure out the fallacy - they like having this convenient way to attack C, irrespective of whether it's valid or not. Rare I think - mostly it's more confusion and memetics. But still, I'm convinced there's some sophistry in this. And I'm not the only person to think so, and to have reacted against that in the past.

Extra sad - you don't need that fallacy to attack C. It's redundant. C is quite happy to demonstrate its many failings.