> having side effects and having lazy evaluation are distinct features though Fair enough, but lazyness also plays nicer with things like `if` and `&&` that co

> having side effects and having lazy evaluation are distinct features though Fair enough, but lazyness also plays nicer with things like `if` and `&&` that comput things lazily. (Without lazyness you need to add lots of wrapper anonymous functions). Another thins is that, from a hystorical point of view, the only reason Haskell managed to be so pure in the first place was the lazyness. If your language is not lazy its very tempting to add sideeffects.