>but OCaml is much noisier than Haskell in my opinion. I would rather say explicit, and that was a breath of fresh air to me after Haskell. As for your example

>but OCaml is much noisier than Haskell in my opinion. I would rather say explicit, and that was a breath of fresh air to me after Haskell. As for your example, how many instances do you need to write all the type classes you need? In OCaml I could just write all the functions I need in a file, and this file-module would implement all the signatures, thanks to the structural typing, now condiser: type 'a t val bind : 'a t -> ('a -> 'b t) -> 'b t val apply : ('a -> 'b) t -> 'a t -> 'b t val map : ('a -> 'b) -> 'a t -> 'b t val show : 'a t -> ('a -> string) -> string val return : 'a -> 'a t instead of instance Functor a => Functor (Type a) where fmap :: (a -> b) -> f a -> f b instance Applicative a => Applicative (Type a) where <*> :: f (a -> b) -> f a -> f b instance Show (Type a) where show :: a -> string instance Monad... which is more verbose?