"A gentle introduction to Symta" - Nikita Sadkov

"Advanced Symta" - Nikita Sadkov

Where are these books?!

Nikita, write and publish!

>>26
No. It's just that the paper has a more in-depth discussion than the blog post. That's why I included two links.

Another blog post:
http://pchiusano.blogspot.ru/2009/05/optional-laziness-doesnt-quite-cut-it.html

The opinion of an expert programmer:
http://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/1pnrqn/deamortized_st_by_edward_kmett/cd4befs

I used to think I wanted a strict by default language, too. My experience isn't that its somewhat more messy, but rather than its a slaughterhouse to get the level of laziness that makes it useful. YMMV but one of the biggest wins of haskell for me is that algorithms written by different people compose well.

Those that are put together in a strict-by-default environment are often strict enough that they just don't compose without "time leaks", so you wind up reimplementing the whole thing over again, entangling the two implementations by hand, because its easier than dealing with the laziness annotations, defeating the whole purpose of the exercise to me.

You "could" build a culture in a strict language around structures with lazy spines and get things that compose, but I can't point to a single language out there that can do this that does.

The 'quick and easy path' in that setting leads to mutation and folks tying the knot with mutation and nulls, not lazy values and bottoms.