PureScript and Haskell
&gt; <i>While not directly related to strictness, a pain point on the PureScript side that I didn’t experience in Haskell was stack safety.</i><p>Stack safety <i>is</i> directly related to laziness—Haskell being lazy[1] by default is what lets functions that would cause stack overflows in other languages work in Haskell. If you&#x27;re incrementally producing or consuming a lazy data structure, memory can be allocated on the heap and garbage collected as you&#x27;re traversing the data structure without needing to use the stack[2]. Haskell makes recursing over or producing lazy data structures the path of least resistance, so you end up almost never worrying about stack overflows—they only pop up in code written with strict types like numbers.<p>Of course you end up with other issues that are unique to lazy languages—like space leaks—but you really <i>do</i> get some pervasive advantages from having lazy code by default. Some people make it seem like laziness has lots of downsides with only niche upsides, but that hasn&#x27;t matched my experience at all: I&#x27;ve found laziness makes day-to-day programming better in a few ways (like not thinking about tail calls and stack overflows) that are the opposite of niche—so pervasive it&#x27;s easy to take them for granted.<p>[1]: Technically Haskell is &quot;non-strict&quot; rather than &quot;lazy&quot;, but I&#x27;ve found that distinction obscures the core issues in discussions like this. Just throwing in this footnote as a fig leaf to accurate terminology :).<p>[2]: I feel this explanation is oversimplifying or not quite getting details right, but can&#x27;t think of a better way to explain it at the moment.