5 ms·

I think the problem here isn't power or expressiveness per se, but a large number of fundamental concepts. For example, vanilla Haskell has a lot of expressiven

I think the problem here isn't power or expressiveness per se, but a large number of fundamental concepts. For example, vanilla Haskell has a lot of expressiveness built around a few core concepts (first-class functions, parametric polymorphism, typeclasses). However Haskell + 101 extensions or Scala derive a lot of their expressiveness from a plurality of fundamental languages features. That is what creates the real problem.

Peaker 11y ago
Note that Haskell extensions all compile (straight-forwardly) down to a relatively bare (typed) language. That is, the set of fundamental concepts exposed is no greater than the bare language, except the higher abstraction allows controlling which subset of the power is exposed so that type inference can be kept, and various syntactic sugar can be used. Haskell (with virtually all extensions used) doesn't have that many fundamental concepts, and a small minority of extensions actually are fundamental at all.