1. 20

  2. 3

    An immediate consequence, since Turing categories are Cartesian closed and have products, is that lazy/non-eager approaches to computation are somehow “closer to the metal” than strict/eager approaches when non-termination is possible. This intuition may have been part of Haskell’s formative complex of memes.

    I wonder whether there’s a formal duality between laziness and strictness. It seems like there should be one!