4 ms·
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 stumbli
by 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 agoThe main problem with laziness is that, according to SPJ "[l]aziness makes it much, much harder to reason about performance, especially space."
- willtim 10y agoOf 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 agoIt'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.