It only reads like a troll piece because you are deliberately taking his statements in an adversarial context. It's weird to complain about the tone of other po

It only reads like a troll piece because you are deliberately taking his statements in an adversarial context. It's weird to complain about the tone of other posts, and then go on to write a comment like yours. > This is an explainabrag which is also wrong: languages without these features can also have "clean, maintainable code" and nothing about this list implies "runs fast." I agree with you here. However, I would also agree with the claim that Haskell is simple at its core. It's simple in a mathematical sense, and that doesn't imply that the language is easy to understand or that such simplicity offers all kinds of advantages other languages lack. > The author rushes past real-world facts to get to the architecture-astronaut rocket ship, solving type-theoretical problems and pretending it's an engineering exercise. Blast off, I guess. The author writes a small inaccurate section on the current state of affairs, before writing a very well-explained piece on how to get GHC to be better dependently typed. Dependent types are not something you care about, so its quite obvious why you are only responding to a small preface section of the post, while dismissing the meat of it as "solving type-theoretical problems". I assure you that dependent types, how to get there, are very important to a large number of people. An inaccurate preface doesn't take away from, or affect, this exercise. I wish other readers reading this comment take time to read the bulk of the article, if they are interested in dependent types(or want to learn about it). It is very well written and explained, and it is not a comparative study of mainstream languages with Haskell, in case you get that impression from the other comments here.