The article is posing a question to those who believe Haskell is great. "Assume for the sake of argument that Haskell is great...then why hasn't it taken over t

The article is posing a question to those who believe Haskell is great. "Assume for the sake of argument that Haskell is great...then why hasn't it taken over the world?" Anecdotally, I can't think of a case of someone who's used Haskell with proficiency and feels another language is generally better. But I can think of many cases of people who, confronted with the learning curve, set it aside to learn something else more immediately applicable. Just looking at some bullet points, Haskell offers: * A nice interpreter, * Default immutability, * A flexible and clear type system. Default immutability does make reasoning about your program much easier. I don't think anyone would argue that but if you disagree it'd be interesting to hear what you have to say. The absence of an interpreter in Go is a major nuisance, and makes it about as difficult as Rust to try out something simple. Whether you like the type system of Haskell or not, it is pretty good for the kind of type system it is. There is a joke that Haskell libraries don't have any documentation and when people complain the Haskellers say, the types are enough. At a certain point you realize this is true: you get a lot more out of a Haskell type signature than a Java or C type signature, so much so that your approach to a library is generally "I'm looking for a function A -> B..." and you fish around by type. This is the dream of types: meaningful, machine-checked metadata.