Talk:Eager evaluation

Major Rewrite
I rewrote the article to address the concerns below and provide a neutral point of view. I attempted to limit the article to common, general facts and avoid trying to prove points in the article. 71.225.188.211 (talk) 04:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Disputed information
I removed the following paragraph from the article, because it simply isn't true.


 * However, in more sophisticated programming languages, the low-level optimisation of forced eager evaluation is found to be disadvantageous over lazy evaluation. This is because it prevents the higher-level optimisations and greater expressiveness that can be obtained under the latter method, which generally allows the implementation of both lazy and eager semantics.

&mdash;donhalcon╤ 03:49, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I would say what remains is even less accurate. This article needs a neutral rewrite! —greenrd (talk) 18:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree... this seems like somebody dislike lazy evaluation or don't know what is he talking about...
 * We can agree all we want, but unless someone has the will, the neutrality shall remain "disputed". ;-) --Paxcoder (talk) 14:33, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is both poorer and shorter than the corresponding section in [Evaluation Strategy]
I recommend either a merge or a move from the other article to here. Skl (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Apart from anything else (and there's plenty wrong), it conflates eager and strict evaluation. Itsbruce (talk) 22:41, 22 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I merged from here to the evaluation strategy article. There isn't a lot to say about eager evaluation on its own, all the article are like "here's our new alternative XYZ to eager evaluation". Really it only exists as the opposite of lazy evaluation. --Mathnerd314159 (talk) 17:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)