5

In the streams 2 video of SICP, Abelson gives an example of using an analog computer solving differential equations. He then programs this in Scheme, using lazy evaluation to get around a circular definition dependency.

The problem with this technique, he says, is that when you design more complicated programs, you end up with delayed expressions everywhere that make it difficult to understand. To solve the problem elegantly, he says, you must make the entire language lazy at the price of some expressiveness, namely the dragging tail problem.

This is the approach taken by Miranda and Haskell. In Haskell I have found that it is difficult to reason about big O complexity, and it is easy to write programs that consume far too much memory and time.

I once spoke to Robert Harper about this problem, and he disagrees that you have to make your entire language lazy to make it elegant, and that this is a design flaw in Haskell. How specifically would one go about making a language partially lazy to solve this problem? Are there examples of such languages? I'd like to learn more about functional languages, but banning side effects and eager evaluation everywhere, including I/O, makes things a bit... counter-intuitive.

Peter Mortensen
  • 30,738
  • 21
  • 105
  • 131
Jeff Linahan
  • 3,775
  • 5
  • 37
  • 56
  • You can make a function strict (hence not lazy) by using the $! operator before the argument, so it's not banned. One man's design flaw is another man's design feature. – AndrewC Jun 28 '13 at 18:41
  • 4
    ...and Robert Harper has a reputation for trolling against Haskell, so take what he says with a pinch of salt and look for a bit of balance. – AndrewC Jun 28 '13 at 18:51
  • 5
    @AndrewC `s/pinch/wheelbarrow/` – Daniel Fischer Jun 28 '13 at 19:28

1 Answers1

8

It is not hard to reason about big O complexity -- it is just different in a lazy language. A classic reference on this is Okasaki's thesis (and later book) that describes the bankers method (see chapter 3) for accounting for complexity.

In general, one wants a mix of lazy and strict behavior -- some data structures we may want strict in their "spine" but lazy in their elements. Other data structures we may want strict in their elements, but perhaps with selective laziness in their spines potentially infinite structures vectors, for example. Haskell offers laziness with selective strictness, including directly in data constructor definitions. Other languages offer strictness with selective laziness. In general, many find that the lazy-by-default behavior of Haskell has certain advantages, especially with regards to definition of new control structures. See, for example, here (which is in fact written in response to Harper).

sclv
  • 38,665
  • 7
  • 99
  • 204