On Saturday, September 13, 2014 9:01:53 AM UTC-5, Lee wrote: > > So now one of my first steps when I'm faced with a confusing bug is to > stamp out all of the laziness except where I'm really doing things lazily > on purpose, for a good reason. I've also come to think that the > pervasiveness and defaultness of laziness in Clojure may not really be so > wonderful after all. Laziness is beautiful when you want it, and when you > do want it it's beautiful that so much of Clojure works with it so > effortlessly and transparently, but it can also produce subtle problems > when things aren't purely functional (which is a lot of the time, in my > experience, sometimes for subtle reasons). >
In my response the State of Clojure survey question "What do you think is Clojure's most glaring weakness / blind spot / problem?", I wrote: "Laziness. ...." I also said that I love it. Both. Most of the time it doesn't matter much, so if you got rid of laziness there, all you'd do is get rid of laziness bugs (and many questions from newbies). Maybe an ideal world would be one in which there was a global setting to turn laziness on and off. When you want it, have it, and know your risks. After looking at the source for some of the lazy functions, I've come to suspect that such a feature would be completely nontrivial. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
