3 ms·

This is turning a bunch of buts, but...that statement is true for any statically typed language. Fluency is underrated in general and is a big part of the disa

This is turning a bunch of buts, but...that statement is true for any statically typed language. Fluency is underrated in general and is a big part of the disagreements over languages. If you're really fluent in something, it's amazing how even languages with flaws are less problematic than people think because once you get used to idioms you learn to avoid those flaws and work in the context of the language. I can skim over a JS file and have a similar experience of understanding as the OP describes, given that JS is reasonable.

seagreen 9y ago
> that statement is true for any statically typed language. It's a spectrum! The awesome part about Haskell is that you can assume functions are deterministic and don't do IO unless they declare otherwise in the type signature. This is really a huge deal. I like statically typed imperative languages, but there's a big difference in expressiveness between a crude type signature like `String -> String` and something more fine grained like `URL -> IO ResponseBody`. That said, Haskell has lots of downsides (many of which have been addressed in the last few years, some of which have not) so it's not a perfect language by any means. But it is very readable and refactorable.