<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#cccccc" text="#000000">
Nicolas,<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid5ce89fb50702150930p1d9c8d2biad8beb49119bc623@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">Someone already mentioned John Hughes paper. Another
resource is SPJ's
<br>
"hair shirt" slides (also discusses type classes and monads).
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/haskell-retrospective/HaskellRetrospective.pdf">http://research.microsoft.com/~simonpj/papers/haskell-retrospective/HaskellRetrospective.pdf</a>
<br>
<br>
Laziness is addressed beginning on slide 19.
<br>
</blockquote>
I've even read "History of Haskell" paper, and accordingly to it the
default laziness was chosen because it was rather unite factor for
scientists, not because it had some big advantage:<br>
<br>
<i>Then, in the late 70’s and early 80’s, something new happened. A<br>
series of seminal publications ignited an explosion of interest in the<br>
idea of lazy (or non-strict, or call-by-need) functional languages as<br>
a vehicle for writing serious programs.<br>
</i><br>
So, as I understand, choosing default laziness was just experimental
design decision in order to answer the question: "how good lazy
language can be". I am practically convinced, that lazy evaluation
included in the _right_ places can be extremely useful. I didn't state
the question as "strict vs lazy", my question is different - "default
laziness with optional strict -vs- default strictness with optional
lazy". And sorry, but the question remains open.<br>
<br>
Best regards,<br>
Nick.<br>
</body>
</html>