I didn't critisize Haskell. I only criticized a statement about its type system. > You're also forgetting that signature includes the name of the function. Th

I didn't critisize Haskell. I only criticized a statement about its type system. > You're also forgetting that signature includes the name of the function. That's what I wanted to point out. The name of a function is even more important than its types. Types alone seldomly give you the complete picture of what's going on in a function. Of course the name can be wrong whereas types can't, but the name is less likely to be wrong than a comment.