I think this is a very good idea. Non-strict `foldl` for summing and
multiplying introduces undesired space leaking behavior and is a very
surprising default both to beginners and even for more experienced
Haskellers.
If there was a Num type with lazy structure, something like `product
[
My fellow Haskell developers, contributors and maintainers,
I wish to present what is certainly a controversial proposal for the `base` library: Making the `sum` and `product` functions from the `base` library strict.
This is not a new question, the debate is old, but I am personally convinced that the existence of those two lazy functions is something that should never have happened. One of the first goals that led to the creation of Haskell was to enable collaboration and research in the domain of lazy (or non-strict) programming languages and techniques. While it led to the discovery of new methods and ways to represent programs, we also realised that this paradigm has proven to produce sub-optimal implementations for these functions.
And while maintaining backward compatibility *is* important when designing and maintaining a programming language, we have thankfully developed deprecation mechanisms that can be used to signal that bad, or sub-optimal decisions of the past can be corrected.
To refresh our collective memory, here is the current state of things, regarding `sum`:
``` ❯ ghci +RTS -M1024m GHCi, version 8.10.1: https://www.haskell.org/ghc/ :? for help λ❯ sum [1..10^9] *** Exception: heap overflow ``` Whereas, with an alternative implementation, such as `foldl'`: ``` λ❯ foldl' (+) 0 [1..10^9] 500000000500000000 (31.35 secs, 88,000,076,288 bytes) ```
I do not think a heap overflow, and the underlying space leak occasioned by the laziness of `foldl`, are behaviours we should aim to preserve for the sake of backward compatibility.
And actually, I think that moving these two functions to a strict, space leak-free implementation would benefit the lazy PL research domain by showing a good counter-example of why it is not necessarily suitable for every kind of computation. I also think, and this is rooted from experience, that we must strive to empower our users with the power of laziness. Not burden them with it. Standing on the shoulders of giants is what made Haskell so great, but this should not prevent us from spreading our wings to go higher.
———
Now, there have been Prelude replacements (such as Relude) and companion libraries (like `strict`) who have been shipping such alternative implementations for quite some time now.
A point that can be raised is: Why should we bother? Isn't `strict` already enough? To this I answer: `strict` and Relude, ultimately, patches on an tire's inner tube. We may be able to roll with them for some distance, but their very existence is a response to an abnormal situation that we have grown to accept. However, any bicycle rider who has the means to change their tire should do so. I believe we have the means to do so.
Another point that could be raised as well is the fact that this implementation change would deviate from the 2010 Haskell Report[0]. If we want to stay true to the spirit and letter of the Report, this is actually a non-issue. Indeed, it is noted that:
This report defines the syntax for Haskell programs and an informal abstract semantics for the meaning of such programs. We leave as implementation dependent the ways in which Haskell programs are to be manipulated, interpreted, compiled, etc. This includes such issues as the nature of programming environments and the error messages returned for undefined programs (i.e. programs that formally evaluate to⊥).[1]
As well as in chapter 9:
In this chapter the entire Haskell Prelude is given. It constitutes a specification for the Prelude. Many of the definitions are written with clarity rather than efficiency in mind, and it is not required that the specification be implemented as shown here.[2]
And finally, regarding the non-strict nature of Haskell, the Report references strict evaluation to avoid "unneeded laziness."[3] Thus it was expected that laziness would not be a silver bullet, and it could harm performance.
———
Regarding the implementation detail, `sum` and `product` would piggy-back on the already-present `foldMap'` function.
Thank you very much for reading, I believe we can all go together towards improving the experience of Haskell developers, starting with this.
[0]: Haskell 2010 Language Report, https://www.haskell.org/definition/haskell2010.pdf [1]: Haskell 2010 Language Report, page 3 [2]: Haskell 2010 Language Report, Chapter 9 Standard Prelude, page 105 [3]: Haskell 2010 Language Report, Section 6.2 Strict Evaluation, page 75
-- Hécate ✨ IRC: Uniaika WWW: https://glitchbra.in RUN: BSD
_______________________________________________ Libraries mailing list Libraries@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries