3 ms·
> ...but it tought people what can be done with a thorough design. Lazy-by-default is clearly wrong and clearly a broken design. If that is 'thorough', I fail
by otabdeveloper4 6y ago
> ...but it tought people what can be done with a thorough design.
Lazy-by-default is clearly wrong and clearly a broken design. If that is 'thorough', I fail to see any advantages to 'thoroughness' compared to just making it up as we go along.
- choeger 6y agoBefore you criticise a programming language you should really at least try to learn a bit of terminology. Otherwise you might come across as an uninformed douchebag. There is no such thing as "lazy by default". Haskell is just lazily evaluated, which is one of the well known possible evaluation strategies. And regarding it being "wrong" and "broken", I presume of course that you found inherent problems in the G-machine that you just never came around to publish. The alternative would be that you are just mentally unable to make the switch away from a strict call-by-value evaluation.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tome 6y agoAs a big Haskell fan I love laziness and completely disagree with otabdeveloper4. On the other hand, others are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. Even if we think otabdeveloper4's assertion was false I don't think it needs any response as it wasn't an invitation to discussion. I think the Haskell community will come off far better if we avoid petty spats.