>1. OCaml compiles to a binary like Go and Rust do And Haskell. >2. The type system is helpful without being a huge burden on learning/productivity (unlike Ru

>1. OCaml compiles to a binary like Go and Rust do And Haskell. >2. The type system is helpful without being a huge burden on learning/productivity (unlike Rust and Haskell) What? The type system is partly why my coauthor can use Haskell, unlike JS or Java. Haskell was her first time ever programming and now she's teaching Haskell to her 10 year old son. I use Haskell in my day job, I couldn't do my job without the type system! So in terms of learning and productivity in Haskell (can't speak for Rust), I will strongly disagree here. The rest of the points apply for Haskell as well. Haskell doesn't need to be hard to learn at all, it hasn't had the learning resources it deserves and expectations weren't being set properly. It's more like learning a new way to program (functionally) rather than a dialect of an existing paradigm (imperative, but we give you a map and a reduce function). That paradigm (functions alone) is very simple but the implications are non-obvious and require a method of introduction that involves a lot of exercises.