Many of the claims are false: > 1. It’s object oriented. The point refers to OOHaskell, which is a now dead syntactic dialect. So it may not be valid for common

Many of the claims are false: > 1. It’s object oriented. The point refers to OOHaskell, which is a now dead syntactic dialect. So it may not be valid for common Haskell, where inheritance with extension may still need to be worked on... > 17. It has an advanced Array type. Compare it to even more advanced Array type in R, Matlab, Julia or even NumPy... > 3. It is a dynamic language. Most people define dynamic language not by capability to dynamically load code, but to code in quick-and-dirty manner with duck typing. > 18. It is extensible. While it allows macros, it doesn't allow for easy addition of arbitrary syntactic sugar like LISP and SCHEME do. Others are given without reference or elaboration (like pointers to Dynamic, and -fdefer-type-errors in 3, or TemplateHaskell in 18.) Overall I would call it a bad journalism :-(. One would have hope that 2007 article would be corrected by 2013, but this one hasn't been...