>This is an explainabrag which is also wrong It only feels like "explainabrag"ing to some, I would imagine. The terms are all really standard, and listing out

>This is an explainabrag which is also wrong It only feels like "explainabrag"ing to some, I would imagine. The terms are all really standard, and listing out features by their names hardly feels braggy. It's a clear, concise way of stating features of a language. Coming from other languages with those features I think the information was conveyed well - but for others it would just look like jargon. To me, the author was setting up the post - framing the conversation by explaining their view of Haskell as a set of core features. Then they moved on to discuss another feature - dependent types. This makes a lot of sense in the context of dependent types - I think this HN post really nicely conveys why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18705128 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18705128 > What a profoundly dismissive attitude. Why bring up Cyclone and not, say, Swift? Or is Swift meant to be included in "garbage collected languages?" It's like, pretty mostly true. There are other languages that are memory safe without GC but I don't know of any that are mainstream/ even in use, or that allow free'ing of memory. Yes Swift is GC'd, just not tracing GC'd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_science)#Reference_counting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garbage_collection_(computer_s... > No these are not the same and this is an absurdly wrong conflation. Dart, Objective-C, TypeScript, and others are dynamically typed languages with static type checking. You can't "or rather" this distinction away. I don't think so. "Dynamically typed with static type checking" makes no sense. The languages listed are statically typed. They may coincidentally compile to code that checks the type at runtime as well, or code that has or lacks implicit casts, or otherwise carries type information around with the data, or whatever, but the types are statically defined. Also, dynamic types are often considered to be unityped - every value inhabits one giant union of all possible types. https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-languages-are-static-languages/ https://existentialtype.wordpress.com/2011/03/19/dynamic-lan... Here is a source demonstrating that this view is not unique. You are free to disagree (some do), but it's hardly an "absurdly wrong conflation". I think your post was pretty unnecessarily critical. You didn't like the post, ok. But maybe you should have challenged that gut reaction - that "rubbed me the wrong way" feeling, because I think your post has considerably more inaccuracies than the article and is unequivocally more hostile. If you'd challenged that feeling maybe you would have learned something?