I don’t have any particular need to defend the posting, but I disagree with your take, as I think you’re not aware of how subjective your opinion is, and there

I don’t have any particular need to defend the posting, but I disagree with your take, as I think you’re not aware of how subjective your opinion is, and there are more target groups than what you seem to focus on. > This post is not for beginners/non-haskellers, I don't understand why it's being posted here. Plenty of interesting topics related to specific languages get posted here all the time, I am under no assumption that 100% of HN is haskellers, but there is still enough that people find it worthwhile to share and upvote on here. > Is this intentional or are people in the haskell community this tone deaf? Why would you blame the community on this? If anything, the need to create rifts with comments like yours, is something the community deeply needs to move on from. The reason for the posting is that it’s an interesting exploration of type holes and their usefulness. As you may have noticed several places in this thread, the concept that the more polymorphic the type, the more restricted you actually are, seems to have peaked interest and opened some eyes to new concepts. > It's like we're determined to prevent new people from joining. Not at all. What people find interesting is very subjective, and one of the things I sorely miss from daily working in other languages, is being able to work with the compiler as a pal that helps you out. This post demonstrates one way to make Haskell work for you, and if you’ve honestly read the post, Sandy does a good job of explaining the concept on simpler functions. > If you are using Coyoneda in your code, please do not use it to extol the virtues of Haskell, except if you're sure your audience is expert haskellers/mathematicians/researchers/others who can actually gain something from the post, or if the writing is so sublime that it has reduced the complexity to near zero. Sorry, but I’m starting to feel like you didn’t read the article, but maybe just the comments here. At no point did the post care about Coyoneda. It started out with demonstrating how a complex piece of code could be reached with the method (type holes), and then went on to demonstrate the method on simpler code, removing the need to know anything else. If you focused on understanding the first piece of code, then you’ve completely missed the authors intent. > Please OP, you're actively hurting the adoption of Haskell by posting stuff like this in the wrong places/context. That’s a fair opinion to have, but not one I can agree with at all. With a wealth of languages to pick from, why should anyone pick Haskell? Some of what drives people’s interest are these demonstrations of what is possible, when you have a more expressive type system. That are tons of other reasons too, but as a “selling point”, it’s not “look how simple Haskell code can look”, because that is sure as sh*t like lying people straight up in their face—that’s not where Haskell differentiates itself. I’ll close out with adding that Polysemy is very cool, and I’m personally looking forward to seeing it ready for usage :)