News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Why Haskell is suited to IO by ankrgyl on Monday July 04, 2011 @11:58AM (#2726850)
Great explanation. Just a small point though,

> "lazy" is the opposite of "imperative."

should be: "lazy" is the opposite of "strict" or "eager". "Imperative", in this context, is the opposite of "functional".

Re:Why Haskell is suited to IO by chc on Monday July 04, 2011 @12:59PM (#2727043)
It's basically impossible to have a lazy imperative language, though, because "a sequence of statements" is the definition of an imperative program, and laziness leaves the ordering of that sequence undefined.
Re:Why Haskell is suited to IO by ankrgyl on Monday July 04, 2011 @01:43PM (#2727207)
Re:Why Haskell is suited to IO by chc on Monday July 04, 2011 @10:01PM (#2728412)
I don't mean to split hairs, but Scala isn't a lazily evaluated language — it's a strict language that allows optional lazy evaluation, and AFAIK it only really works well if you're programming Scala in a more or less functional style. I'm pretty sure Scala's lazy values still lead to unpredictable behavior if you lazy up something that has side effects.