> Up to a certain point of course. As I pass about 1000 lines of code I start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the lack of static type checking to catch my cha

> Up to a certain point of course. As I pass about 1000 lines of code I start feeling a bit uncomfortable about the lack of static type checking to catch my changes. This is indeed where statically typed languages come in to shine - refactoring and maintenance. With a powerful type system you can be much more assured that your refactors or small/big changes here and there don't break the whole system or unexercised parts of it. > It requires far more investment than other languages to learn and I've learned plenty. Nothing has required as much effort as Haskell. Despite the effort I never felt like I could write any real and practical programs with it. That's often attributed to the fact that Haskell isn't just another syntax slapped on an Algol-like language. It's not just different syntax (ML-style), but an entirely different approach to programming. This often leaves experienced programmers frustrated with the experience that they are starting from scratch (without realising that, that is what they are doing). Some nice advice is giving by Gabriel Gonzales here http://www.haskellforall.com/2017/10/advice-for-haskell-beginners.html http://www.haskellforall.com/2017/10/advice-for-haskell-begi.... > I honestly think the Haskell fan club is slightly deluded. If Haskell was truly as amazing as they think, we ought to have seen a lot more amazing software being made in Haskell We have a lot of amazing software in Haskell already, e.g. Facebooks Haxl, Pandoc, QuickCheck, Yesod, Servant and many more. The argument that Haskell isn't doing stuff right because we don't see it everywhere is quite silly. By that metric PHP would be the best designed language ever...