CUFP 2011 Keynote: Pragmatic Haskell (Lennart Augustsson Standard Chartered Bank)

I mean, if you want a direct quote from Lennart Augustsson, here's a quick transcription of the relevant parts of the relevant video. [this video] > So strictness is really fantastic, I must say. Stack traces work. When something goes wrong, you can say "so you call things from there to there to there". It's the single most time saving thing from Mu compared to Haskell, because things do go wrong from now and then, and it's so great to know exactly what went wrong... And strict languages have what I call resource composition. So if you understand the complexity of 2 parts you can stick them together and nothing weird happens. They add up. That's not true in lazy languages. And debugging, it's sensible in strict languages. And exceptions, they actually work! Strictness is great. It's terrible, also. So it has nice resource composition but it doesn't compose nicely semantically. So laziness has some good things as well. I think laziness is a much nicer way of programming except for these pesky resources. You definitely need some lazy functions, even C has lazy functions. And then he goes on to talk about the ways that they allow laziness in a strict language, and when they need laziness. Screenshots of relevant slides. Considering that the report was pretty much a summary of the talks given at CUFP, I don't know why you would cast doubt on its legitimacy. [link] [link]