3 ms·
There's no need to "bolt on" lazy evaluation since (future) and (delay) are parts of the core language (not to mention lazy seqs)
by mattdeboard 14y ago
There's no need to "bolt on" lazy evaluation since (future) and (delay) are parts of the core language (not to mention lazy seqs)
- moomin 14y agoWell, future, delay and lazy sequences are bolt ons to an eagerly evaluated language. I'm not convinced the laziness is Haskell is worth it, tbh, but its true that you really wouldn't need this project.
- tel 14y agoUsually these kinds of demos are the same as the ones touting the virtues of Haskell's laziness. The visualization is really nice, though, along with the possible paralleization. I think the Par monad is a more interesting comparison, honestly. http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/monad-par/0.3/doc/html/Control-Monad-Par.html http://hackage.haskell.org/packages/archive/monad-par/0.3/do...