Difference between revisions of "Lazy evaluation"
m (added an external reference) |
m (Reverted edits by Tomjaguarpaw (talk) to last revision by Oldmanmike) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | '''Lazy evaluation''' means that expressions are not evaluated when they are bound to variables, but their evaluation is '''deferred''' until their results are needed by other computations. In consequence, arguments are not evaluated before they are passed to a function, but only when their values are actually used. |
+ | '''Lazy evaluation''' is a method to evaluate a Haskell program. It means that expressions are not evaluated when they are bound to variables, but their evaluation is '''deferred''' until their results are needed by other computations. In consequence, arguments are not evaluated before they are passed to a function, but only when their values are actually used. |
| − | Technically, lazy evaluation means [ |
+ | Technically, lazy evaluation means [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#Call_by_name call-by-name] plus [[Sharing]]. A kind of opposite is [[eager evaluation]]. |
| − | Non-strict semantics allows one to bypass undefined values (e.g. results of infinite loops) |
+ | Lazy evaluation is part of operational semantics, i.e. ''how'' a Haskell program is evaluated. The counterpart in denotational semantics, i.e. ''what'' a Haskell program computes, is called [[Non-strict semantics]]. This semantics allows one to bypass undefined values (e.g. results of infinite loops) and in this way it also allows one to process formally infinite data. |
| − | and in this way it also allows one to process formally infinite data. |
||
| + | While lazy evaluation has many advantages, its main drawback is that memory usage becomes hard to predict. The thing is that while two expressions, like <hask>2+2 :: Int</hask> and <hask>4 :: Int</hask>, may denote the same value 4, they may have very different sizes and hence use different amounts of memory. |
||
| − | When it comes to machine level and efficiency issues it is important whether or not equal objects share the same memory. |
||
| − | A Haskell program cannot know whether <hask>2+2 :: Int</hask> and <hask>4 :: Int</hask> are different objects in the memory. |
||
| − | In many cases it is not necessary to know it, |
||
| − | but in some cases the difference between shared and separated objects yields different orders of space or time complexity. |
||
| − | Consider the infinite list <hask> let x = 1:x in x </hask>. |
||
| − | For non-strict semantics it would be ok to store this as a flat list <hask> 1 : 1 : 1 : 1 : ... </hask>, |
||
| − | with memory consumption as big as the number of consumed <hask>1</hask>s. |
||
| − | But with lazy evaluation (i.e. sharing) this becomes a list with a loop, a pointer back to the beginning. |
||
| − | It only consumes constant space. |
||
| − | In an imperative language (here [http://www.modula3.org/ Modula-3]) the same would be achieved with the following code: |
||
| − | |||
| − | <code> |
||
| − | TYPE |
||
| − | List = |
||
| − | REF RECORD |
||
| − | next: List; |
||
| − | value: INTEGER; |
||
| − | END; |
||
| − | |||
| − | VAR |
||
| − | x := NEW(List, value:=1); |
||
| − | BEGIN |
||
| − | x.next := x; |
||
| − | END; |
||
| − | </code> |
||
| − | |||
| − | Thus, lazy evaluation allows us to define cyclic graphs of pointers with warrantedly valid pointers. |
||
| − | In contrast, C allows cyclic graphs of pointers, but pointers can be uninitialized, which is a nasty security hole. |
||
| − | An eagerly evaluating functional language without hacks, would only allow for acyclic graphs of pointers. |
||
| + | An extreme example would be the infinite list |
||
| + | <hask>1 : 1 : 1 …</hask> and the expression <hask> let x = 1:x in x </hask>. The latter is represented as a cyclic graph, and takes only finite memory, but its denotation is the former infinite list. |
||
== See also == |
== See also == |
||
* [[Lazy vs. non-strict]] |
* [[Lazy vs. non-strict]] |
||
| + | * [https://hackhands.com/guide-lazy-evaluation-haskell/ The Incomplete Guide to Lazy Evaluation] – A series of tutorials on lazy evaluation: How it works, how it makes code more modular, how it relates to non-strict semantics, and other things. |
||
| − | * [http://alpmestan.com/ |
+ | * [http://alpmestan.com/posts/2013-10-02-oh-my-laziness.html Oh my laziness!] – An introduction to laziness and strictness in Haskell. |
[[Category:Glossary]] |
[[Category:Glossary]] |
||
Latest revision as of 15:20, 6 February 2021
Lazy evaluation is a method to evaluate a Haskell program. It means that expressions are not evaluated when they are bound to variables, but their evaluation is deferred until their results are needed by other computations. In consequence, arguments are not evaluated before they are passed to a function, but only when their values are actually used.
Technically, lazy evaluation means call-by-name plus Sharing. A kind of opposite is eager evaluation.
Lazy evaluation is part of operational semantics, i.e. how a Haskell program is evaluated. The counterpart in denotational semantics, i.e. what a Haskell program computes, is called Non-strict semantics. This semantics allows one to bypass undefined values (e.g. results of infinite loops) and in this way it also allows one to process formally infinite data.
While lazy evaluation has many advantages, its main drawback is that memory usage becomes hard to predict. The thing is that while two expressions, like 2+2 :: Int and 4 :: Int, may denote the same value 4, they may have very different sizes and hence use different amounts of memory.
An extreme example would be the infinite list
1 : 1 : 1 … and the expression let x = 1:x in x. The latter is represented as a cyclic graph, and takes only finite memory, but its denotation is the former infinite list.
See also
- Lazy vs. non-strict
- The Incomplete Guide to Lazy Evaluation – A series of tutorials on lazy evaluation: How it works, how it makes code more modular, how it relates to non-strict semantics, and other things.
- Oh my laziness! – An introduction to laziness and strictness in Haskell.