6 ms·

The next Haskell will be strict -- Simon Peyton Jones http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/%7Egmh/appsem-slides/peytonjones.ppt http://www.cs.nott.ac.uk/%7Egmh/appsem-

• kobeya 10y ago
  Yes, but not because laziness was a technical failure, but for something more resembling PR reasons. Haskell's laziness by default ends up being a large stumbling block for many developers not used to thinking in that way. Although I understand why Idris is strict by default, there is a part of me that dies a little from that understanding :(
  • mafribe 10y ago
    The main problem with laziness is that, according to SPJ "[l]aziness makes it much, much harder to reason about performance, especially space."
    • willtim 10y ago
      Of course, lazy-by-default also brings many advantages: http://augustss.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-evaluation-in.html http://augustss.blogspot.co.uk/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-...
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
  • solidsnack9000 10y ago
    It's not so much a PR failure, as an ergonomics issue -- making laziness the default makes it too easy for people to create performance problems for themselves. Haskell's laziness undoubtedly works and is useful; you might say it was Haskell's strictness that needed improving.