> Yes, the next Haskell will be strict; that's generally although not universally accepted. The essence of Haskell is non-strictness. It is the very reason Has

> Yes, the next Haskell will be strict; that's generally although not universally accepted. The essence of Haskell is non-strictness. It is the very reason Haskell was created. There are already strict functional languages, like OCaml. What value comes from stripping Haskell of the soul of its existence?