> if you understood King's point, I don't understand how you can be arguing that Haskell idiomatically leads you into rigidity at version boundaries Why would

> if you understood King's point, I don't understand how you can be arguing that Haskell idiomatically leads you into rigidity at version boundaries Why would understanding his argument necessarily mean finding it persuasive or exhaustive? > you parse the cases you care about and ignore the rest What language would not allow this? > The "path of desire" you're describing isn't a property of the language. If a tool tends, more often than not, to lead to certain use, is that not a property of that tool? It is theoretically possible to use a hammer for interpretive dance, sure, but it doesn't seem to happen nearly as often as banging the hammer on things. Equally, I think it's pretty easy to see how a language designed for robust typing is going to lead to, more often than not, robust typing. I rather think you're engaging with a point that no one ever made - that typed languages are inherently incapable of dealing with uncertain, incomplete, or variable data - in lieu of the argument that was actually made - that languages with rich DX around rigid typing encourage an architecture that's rigidly typed, and that rigidly typed codebases tend to come up against predictable issues. The original article identities a series of such issues and misattributes them to FP, when they don't have much to do with FP at all. That's all I was saying.