I’m a bit conflicted about your point here, because they seem cherry-picked to highlight disparate aspects of Haskell that don’t make it less interesting or imp

I’m a bit conflicted about your point here, because they seem cherry-picked to highlight disparate aspects of Haskell that don’t make it less interesting or important. Haskell is more often than not sued as a general purpose language, not as a systems language. Its performance is actually outstanding, usually equal to Java and often close to C. This means that Haskell can be safely used in any domain were java would be fast enough. I find also somewhat arrogant to claim that there are no complex systems built in it. Just take a look at the webpage publishing this article. They mention several projects of great complexity. Here’s an example: https://www.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear-types.html https://www.tweag.io/posts/2017-03-13-linear-types.html They are using Haskell as a prototyping language that lets the refactor and radically change the direction of their solutions at a low development cost. Haskell clearly is helping solve complexity here. Also, where did the claim that GHC is badly documented come from, and how is it relevant to Haskell being important? Just looking at randomly selected file in the repo, it looks actually quite well documented: https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/simplCore/FloatOut.hs https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/simp...