Doesn't the presence of "general abstraction" allow us to write less of the "boring" parts? I thought that's the whole reason for it. Isn't "correctness" a us

Doesn't the presence of "general abstraction" allow us to write less of the "boring" parts? I thought that's the whole reason for it. Isn't "correctness" a useful property, even for a web service? I think that being able to eliminate entire categories of bugs is terrific, in any situation. Sure, it's always nicer to have good libs/tools than to have to write your own (though that distinction is much less important when your language has great abstraction capabilities). Are there any libs/tools you're missing in Haskell? The way your comment is phrased makes it sound like good old fashioned FUD. I'm not sure what you mean by the last sentence. It seems to still be an active area of research all over the place. Look at Swift/Rust/Go/Java, or Postgres/Mongo/Datomic, or ext4/zfs/btrfs/ntfs. Everybody updates records in very different ways. It's not like all Algol-derived languages have the same data model.