Well if you want to get out the yard sticks I've been writing Python for more than 10 years. Exhaustive case matching is very useful, I agree. It is a common e

Well if you want to get out the yard sticks I've been writing Python for more than 10 years. Exhaustive case matching is very useful, I agree. It is a common error in Python code (and in a similar fashion, to catch all exceptions however inappropriate). > A dynamic language can certainly be good enough, but in my opinion never ideal. If I think about it scientifically there are many cases where Python is ideal. For example the scientific Python stack, Jupyter, etc is very popular and, "ideal," in the sense that people frequently use it to get real work done. They don't have to categorize every expression and can instead focus on the data and transformations. As a data-exploration tool Python can be said to be ideal. It seems ideal too as the implementation language of OpenStack where the community supports over 4+ million lines of Python code. Could OpenStack have been better written in Haskell? Maybe. However thousands of contributors seem quite comfortable with Python and the process around developing reliable infrastructure software seems to catch critical errors in practice. I believe that strongly-typed functional languages are awesome. There are many situations where I'd prefer one over the other. However I don't deal in absolutes and don't believe Haskell is going to be the hammer that screws every dowel.