I do think familiarity plays a big role. I find the Haskell syntax much more pleasant than Java, even though I'm perfectly familiar with both. The equivalent s

I do think familiarity plays a big role. I find the Haskell syntax much more pleasant than Java, even though I'm perfectly familiar with both. The equivalent signature in Java (if we could abstract over type functions) would be: interface Functor<F<_>> { <A, B> Function<F<A>, F<B>> map(Function<A, B> f); } You'll find very similar in Scala's `cats`, up to some currying and reordering. [0] [0] https://typelevel.org/cats/typeclasses/functor.html https://typelevel.org/cats/typeclasses/functor.html