Very well put, I am learning haskell at the moment, and beginning to appreciate the power of its type system in a way never which I never felt in Java, C etc.

Very well put, I am learning haskell at the moment, and beginning to appreciate the power of its type system in a way never which I never felt in Java, C etc. When you chain a series of functions/actions together, only to supply data for computation last, type signatures almost always ensures the correctness of the entire computation. This is true even the computation occurs at a high abstraction level. It's almost like magic, when dealing with the more difficult concepts (well for beginners) like monads. There has been a number of times when I wrote something but cannot make sure it does what I want, yet it compiles and a few tests reveals it indeed works like a charm. Whereas in dynamic languages, it'd be a nightmare to dig into the dirty details at runtime. I always have this problem in R, a series of supposedly elegantly linked operations fail for mistakes like forgetting to convert character values into factor type. To debug such errors, I always have to explicitly carry out middle steps and store intermediary results, until finally locating the problem. Another note, even in javaScript, sometimes there at patterns encourage the use of implicit types or interfaces(typeclass in haskell). The canonical example is jQuery, most of the times you can safely do: $(something).method1().method2(param).method3()... This is because any jQuery object inherits methods from $.fn, and most of these methods returns either the same jQuery object, or another jQuery object. In a sense, jQuery itself is a typeclass, anything looks like $(something) is a instance type.