4 ms·
I think Haskell's purity is a more humongous difference than its non-strictness, at least when you're talking about non-performance-critical applications. Lazin
by thinkpad20 12y ago
I think Haskell's purity is a more humongous difference than its non-strictness, at least when you're talking about non-performance-critical applications. Laziness can produce unintuitive behavior in a program, and can make certain things harder, but purity is much more "in your face" as a programmer, and a more significant hurdle to beginners -- or at least, it was to me. I agree, though, that as the programmer becomes more sophisticated, the laziness aspect becomes a more significant difference and, ultimately, probably the biggest reason why Haskell will likely never become truly mainstream. Fortunately, there are promising languages out there which are both pure AND strict, such as Idris, Ur and Manticore.
- dllthomas 12y agoOf course, historically, there's the argument that Haskell's purity was motivated by its non-strictness. "Wearing the hair shirt" and all.
- chriswarbo 12y agoWell, the motivation was to be pure. Non-strictness removed the temptation to extend the language in non-pure ways, either intensionally or accidentally, for the sake of convenience.
- dllthomas 12y agoYou're right, of course. Though if they had cheated, the result probably would have been less interesting.