On Sat, Aug 23, 2014 at 7:23 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:

> >To do any of that justice, you end up with a language that looks
> basically like Haskell. So why not just use Haskell?
>
> Because I don't know anything about it (yet), except the name and the fact
> that you often associated it with lazy evaluation.
>
> Because (#2), this could be a way to make sumabs and the likes obsolete in
> *Julia*. :)
>

We do really want to get rid of things like sumabs., so it's certainly
worth considering. I know I've thought about it many times, but I don't
think it's the right answer – you really want to preserve eager evaluation
semantics, even if you end up moving around the actual evaluation of things.

Reply via email to