> As a general trend the only things being written in these new languages are new web-facing applications, quite often proprietory or customized to narrow roles

> As a general trend the only things being written in these new languages are new web-facing applications, quite often proprietory or customized to narrow roles. Not Unix parts. That doesn't imply "real programmers program with real languages". It implies they're not used to enrich the UNIX / open source ecosystem, which might imply there's not a real need for them in the official repositories, since they're not used to build anything else in the repository. > Additionally, there's the allusions to the fact that the ls/grep-replacements in Haskell aren't POSIX-compliant, which I again read in the tone of "they can't be taken as serious replacement efforts." There is real value in being "POSIX-compliant". It means programs respect an interface. If I write a script that uses "grep" or "find", I have strict requirements from them. I expect them to take certain arguments and interpret them in a certain way. If I can't simply replace "grep" with "haskell-grep" and get the same results (with stronger safety guarantees or performance), I may not have a use for them in certain scenarios. The critique that "They are completely different programs that have borrowed the names." doesn't imply "they can't be taken serious", it implies they can't be used to replace the existing ones.