4 ms·
Pardon me, but why didn't they throw away that strict runtime (especially if laziness so great?) and use the already available Haskell instead, if its laziness
by tmptmp 10y ago
Pardon me, but why didn't they throw away that strict runtime (especially if laziness so great?) and use the already available Haskell instead, if its laziness has not got any problems?
The rationale behind their decision is simple: Laziness comes with its big problems, one of them is difficult to debug and predict runtime behavior.
- tome 10y agoSorry, what do you know about Standard Chartered exactly? Have you worked there? Have you discussed this with the designers of their language (called "Mu")? Mu is strict because it was designed to target an existing strict runtime for which plenty of code was already written (in a language called Lambda, the letter before Mu in the Greek alphabet) and which was already deployed to many users through the corporation. The decision to be strict and not lazy has nothing to do with any downsides of laziness.