2 ms·
People sometimes say ‘non-strict’ to mean ‘can be lazy but not required to be’. I think Haskell is actually non-strict, and not lazy, for example. It’s importa
by chrisseaton 5y ago
People sometimes say ‘non-strict’ to mean ‘can be lazy but not required to be’.
I think Haskell is actually non-strict, and not lazy, for example. It’s important because hard to optimise otherwise!
- agumonkey 5y agoand you know it got me thinking, languages are trees, and haskell tweaks it into DAG (shared call-by-need) .. evaluated one way, but in the context of UIs you get a larger graph set it seems, where any node can evolve and the consistency of the whole graph needs to be rebalanced. Just thinking out loud.
- chrisseaton 5y agoPrograms as trees and graphs is a special interest of mine as well https://chrisseaton.com/truffleruby/basic-graal-graphs/ https://chrisseaton.com/truffleruby/basic-graal-graphs/.
- agumonkey 5y agoOh man, I'm trying to go back into parsing and compilation (and the usual tree/graph processing) right now. This is pr0n material :)