Thomas Davie wrote:
This completely misses what laziness gives Haskell – it gives a way of
completing a smaller number of computations than it otherwise would have to at
run time. (...)
Tony Morris continues the ping-pong:
This is not what laziness gives us. Rather, it gives us terminating
programs that would otherwise not terminate.
Next, please...
You know, this suggests that you should read the parable of Blind Men
and the Elephant.
Alright, my turn. I never wanted to write non-terminating programs (what
for?), and all my programs executed exactly those instructions they
should have executed, not more or less. I see ONE usage of laziness: the
possibility to write co-recursive equations, which become algorithms.
The possibility to represent processes as "data", which makes it easier
to reason upon them. Do we really need some dogmatic specification of
laziness?...
Jerzy Karczmarczuk
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
