It depends on what you mean by "simpler", I suppose. > there might be some motivated cognition at work. Did you really just say that? > I don't think it's tr

It depends on what you mean by "simpler", I suppose. > there might be some motivated cognition at work. Did you really just say that? > I don't think it's trivial for someone with Haskell experience to even verify that code implements the same (or a similar) thing. No, not to verify that it does the same thing. For that you'd have to understand exactly what the Clojure version does too. I'm a quite rusty on Clojure, so I can't make a fair comparison on how easy it is to understand vs. the Haskell version. However, you'll note that I didn't actually say anything about the Clojure version being harder to understand. In fact, my point is that I don't even have to understand the implementation of the Haskell version: I just have to understand its interface (i.e. the types) and have a general idea of what it's supposed to do (in fuzzy terms).