But he does draw direct equivalence: "Local color so you can sound like you know what you’re talking about: in Haskell-land, a closure is called a “thunk”." W

But he does draw direct equivalence: "Local color so you can sound like you know what you’re talking about: in Haskell-land, a closure is called a “thunk”." Which just isn't true. A closure is called a closure and a thunk is called a thunk (as it is in Scheme and any number of other languages; there is nothing special about Haskell). For most of that article he should just replace the word 'closure' with 'thunk' and the issue would disappear.