> And the worst part is that there's so many styles of Haskell - even if you're experienced, sometimes when jumping into a foreigh codebase you'll be suddenly s

> And the worst part is that there's so many styles of Haskell - even if you're experienced, sometimes when jumping into a foreigh codebase you'll be suddenly struck by comonods or some other PL-theory-heavy library you never used before. And that just sucks when you're trying to debug a production bug. To me it basically feels like you're never 'done' learning Haskell. It is true that you have to constantly be learning new idioms, (e)DSLs, libraries, types, etc in Haskell. But in my experience, it isn't so bad. I was at a job with a production Haskell codebase that many senior engineers deemed unsalvageable and were trying to replace in parallel (I don't know if they ever did tbh.) We had production bugs and I had to debug them (I was on the team supporting the production service.) Instead of wincing at how "ugly" and awkward the code was, I just used techniques like the ones in this blog post. I immediately was able to make an impact in the correctness, availability, and performance of the production service, along with the extensibility and ergonomics of the codebase. All because I got my hands dirty instead of wishing things were perfect. It really wasn't hard at all.