Now, that begs the question, why lazy by default and not opt-in lazy?
From the outside looking in it seems that deep expertise is required in order to launch a Haskell production app with any degree of confidence (i.e. to quickly dig yourself out of runtime issues like space leaks where the means to avoid them may be known, but the means to resolve them when they occur, non-trivial).
Very good question. Actually, I think most haskellers agree that laziness complicates things more often than not, and if we could start over we wouldn't make Haskell lazy by default. (Although that's not to say there won't be even simpler ways to "strictify" things in the future. Also, many libraries already provide functions that are strict in their arguments by default.)
However, there is also agreement that Haskell's laziness is the reason the language got purity right: there was simply no other way, since laziness meant evaluation order was unclear.
> From the outside looking in it seems that deep expertise is required in order to launch a Haskell production app with any degree of confidence (i.e. to quickly dig yourself out of runtime issues like space leaks where the means to avoid them may be known, but the means to resolve them when they occur, non-trivial).
As someone who writes Haskell for a living, I really just follow a few rules like this without thinking too much about laziness, and I tend to not have any problems. I have had maybe one nasty space leak in the past five years.
Yes, sometimes they do come up, but it takes ~5-10 minutes to pinpoint the problem spot with the heap profiler. It is not nearly as messy as using Valgrind to find actual memory leaks.
Following Haskell's evolution somewhat from the outside, this is surprising. (And also somewhat disappointing, as laziness always seemed an important part of Haskell's elegance.) Is laziness now considered something of a failed experiment?
It's part of it, but to a lesser extent than you would expect. The much more important part of Haskell is its no-corners-cut separation of effects, which happened chiefly because, without it, laziness meant that there was no way to know when fireTheMissiles() would actually happen.
> Is laziness now considered something of a failed experiment?
To some extent, yes. No one is saying laziness doesn't make the implementation of some algorithms and data structures extremely elegant, just that, most of the time, you don't actually gain much by leaving your function calls and data types lazy.
I enjoy being able to make infinite/self-referencing data structures, or leaving fields lazy and "performing" all of the function calls in the initialization of the "struct", but have only the functions producing results that will actually be needed matter performance-wise. However, if you don't use any strictness annotation, that benefit doesn't outweigh the problems that can be caused by space leaks.
If you do use strictness annotation, I don't think it matters too much whether the language is lazy or strict, you just have to write strictness annotation instead of laziness annotation.
While not universal, I feel confident stating that the opinion is shared by the majority of long-time Haskell programmers.
So the question becomes whether strict-by-default or lazy-by-default is better given that both kinds of evaluation have their place. I personally have come to believe that lazy-by-default is nicer since there are fewer places where I really demand strictness... but it also basically forces your language to be pure.
The other advantage of laziness is that it is a big aid to composition, modularity and concision. It allows you to perform common sub-expression elimination which can be a major boon for code readability. See this article for some examples:
http://augustss.blogspot.ca/2011/05/more-points-for-lazy-eva...
data Foo = Foo
{ bar :: !String
, baz :: !Int
}
> bar :: !String
is going to get you is the first cons cell in weak head normal form.
If my string is "Hello", then in unevaluated form I have
<THUNK>
Using the strict data field gets you weak head normal form, which is
<THUNK>:<THUNK>
Probably not what you had in mind. As far as Haskell is concerned those two thunks might be
undefined:undefined
Using a strict Text will get you where you want to go, because when you reduce that to weak head normal form you will get a fully formed Text.
Watch out with lists, which is all that a String is.
I find myself using deepseq the most when I want to be sure a data structure (and any exceptions any pending operations might throw) has been fully evaluated before passing it off to another thread, not to prevent space leaks.
When you apply a function f to a, that is not actually evaluated. Rather, a "thunk" is created that will evaluate `f a` only when that value is actually needed.
If, in your program, you never need anything, or don't "force" your function calls and data structures ("pretend" to need something) in intermediary stages, then the thunks may take up a non-trivial amount of memory. This is not a memory leak in the traditional sense, just temporarily increased memory usage.
It is very easy to (pre-emptively) handle most space leaks in Haskell, but you do need to know how they arise.
There are two very simply rules you can follow that take care of the vast majority of space leaks:
1. Make data fields strict unless you actually want them to be lazy, i.e. instead of:
write 2. When you write recursive functions that depend on values which are not forced (e.g. pattern matched against) in each function call, use either `seq`/$! or bangpatterns to make sure the value is evaluated (to HNF) rather than building up excessive thunks. For example, instead of: write either or to make sure that connNum is always just a single value rather than a series of unevaluated thunks. That way you won't get a space leak if you rarely have problems accepting new connections.