[Haskell-cafe] Re: OCaml list sees abysmal Language
P.Achten at cs.ru.nl
Fri Oct 8 10:39:48 EDT 2004
At 03:32 PM 10/8/2004, Marcin Kowalczyk wrote:
>Andrew Butterfield <Andrew.Butterfield at cs.tcd.ie> writes:
> >>I though clean was always strict, and that was the major difference
> >>between clean and haskell (that and the fact clean is a proprietry
> > No - Clean is pure and lazy like Haskell,
>But it uses explicit strictness annotations a lot, and provides strict
>and/or unboxed versions of various fundamental types (e.g. tuples),
>with some implicit coercions.
It is of course not the language that uses strictness annotations. Clean
programs without strictness annotations are perfectly lazy. Clean has a
powerful strictness analysis that includes only safe strictness to function
Programmers *can* include strictness annotations, exactly for the reasons
that were mentioned in this thread, namely to influence the evaluation
strategy in such a way that heap consumption and/or run time decrease. In
addition, this can be done light-weight because annotations are added only
to function argument types and data types, instead of modifying the code by
inserting strict evaluator functions.
N.B. My new email address is : P.Achten at cs.ru.nl.
The University of Nijmegen has changed its name to Radboud University Nijmegen
More information about the Haskell-Cafe