I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're

I think we're arguing over subjectivities here -- comprehensibility is entirely dependent on the people involved as much as the language in question. If you're better at Java than Haskell, you'll find it easier to follow, and vice-versa; I know people in each category. And you can write clearly or obfuscate in either language; I've seen all the combinations. Personally, I tend to find Haskell easier to follow. I suspect that's mostly because I've used a lot more Haskell than Java of late, but it'll also be a matter of personal taste. As you say, Java can be very boilerplate-heavy -- some may find the redundancy makes it easier to follow, as it can remind you what's what "as you go"; others may feel like they're scrolling up and down hunting for meaningful code, and find all that boilerplate a distracting waste of space. I will admit that, on average, I'll have to spend a bit longer looking at a line of Haskell than a line of Java before I know exactly what it does -- but then again, you rarely need anywhere near as many lines of Haskell as Java to solve the same problem, so it feels like a net gain to me.