This completely misses what laziness gives Haskell – it gives a way of completing a smaller number of computations than it otherwise would have to at run time. (...) Tony Morris continues the ping-pong: This is not what laziness gives us. Rather, it gives us terminating
Thomas Davie wrote: programs that would otherwise not terminate. Next, please...
You know, this suggests that you should read the parable of Blind Men and the Elephant. Alright, my turn. I never wanted to write non-terminating programs (what for?), and all my programs executed exactly those instructions they should have executed, not more or less. I see ONE usage of laziness: the possibility to write co-recursive equations, which become algorithms. The possibility to represent processes as "data", which makes it easier to reason upon them. Do we really need some dogmatic specification of laziness?... Jerzy Karczmarczuk