Conversation

As someone who's been using haskell for work for over a decade, who's set up dozens upon dozens of Haskell meetups, and who is a strong proponent of Haskell, I agree that it is by far not some esolang, but saying "this is objectively wrong" is just stroking your own ego.
2
2
Hmmm. Thanks, food for thought. I stand by "objective": countless beginners have found it perfectly suitable, in no small part thanks to the good work of people like you. There's no wiggle room there. I don't see how my ego's fingerprints are on this one, though
1
3
Help me out here, what's the problem - "objectively"? More hedging or softening required? I'm not trying to attack or persuade the author, I'm trying to encourage us (the FP community) to improve our comms, which I think is what you're saying too; perhaps my eye has a log in it
1
1
Ultimately the axioms and notation we choose to base our work on are based on experimentation and intuition. There is probably a landscape of 'better' and 'worse' formal systems that could be tested, but we're a long way from being able to design experiments for that.
1