Would this be bold enough?
…that discussion concluded with me suggesting that it probably probably would be easier to make Elm non-strict by default rather than “embedding” it in Haskell.
So here’s another [attempt at a] bold idea: let’s take an existing statically-typed strict language and make it non-strict:
- if it fails, the products of the effort can be studied and the results used by other projects;
- but if it succeeds, there’s the potential to replicate the success of Haskell through the formation of a whole new community, as interested users of that existing language exercise their curiosity.
Before Haskell, there used to be a language called Lazy ML - anyone for Lazy Standard ML '97 Non-Strict ML 2027 …?