Haskell's type system may be sophisticated, but it's also very simple. There's no sub-typing of any sort, for example. With a bit of mathematical notation--whi

Haskell's type system may be sophisticated, but it's also very simple. There's no sub-typing of any sort, for example. With a bit of mathematical notation--which may be a little foreign but is not that complicated--you can fit all of Haskell's type inference rules on a single page. These rules specify how the type system behaves and how to infer types! (The type inference, which may seem magical, is just a constraint satisfaction problem and so is easy to specify.) I would not be surprised if Go's typing rules are more complex than Haskell's. All while giving you less static guarantees and less thorough type inference.