> Types are the cheapest semantic documentation you can write They are not. Unfortunately, especially Haskell world seems to think they replace documentation,

> Types are the cheapest semantic documentation you can write They are not. Unfortunately, especially Haskell world seems to think they replace documentation, that's why so much of "documentation" for a lot of Haskell libs are just a dump of types with no explanation of what they mean, how they interact, what the functions using them do, or how they can be used. > they're notes to future contributors/yourself about how a program works They are not. Types do not describe how a program works. > so they/you don't have to reverse engineer code that was written a while ago in order to modify it with confidence. Yes, you will have to reverse engineer code that was written a while ago. Because types only describe, well, types. You code contains logic. And logic is the hardest part to understand. Personal anecdote: worked on a system that was transitioning from original ad-hoc implementation to a better designed one. Some functions would accept a Person. Others would accept a Contact. Why? How to convert between the two? What are the differences? What was behind the decision? Why did `is_empty(new_contact())` returned `false`? And so on. Thank god it had types, right? No need to reverse engineer.