I'm guessing there's an engineer at Google responding to an alert of thousands of users across the world all attempting to load the same non-existent page on their servers.
I learned F# as this guy learned Scala. I too dived into Haskell after a while and learnt a lot of new things.
Having learned some great functional tips, I came back to my regular C#/Ruby and applying LINQ and Ruby's blocks seemed more natural to me. However, monads, monoids, functors still don't matter when you switch over.
I've used Yesod to write a small app. A typical form in Yesod (for model binding) has this signature:
newPostForm :: Html -> MForm Blog Blog (FormResult (Text,Text,Text), Widget)
Even after learning Yesod for a while, I wasn't able to completely reason with that signature. Why bother with all the name of the application, sub site, formresult, widget when all you want is just three simple form fields? Rails gives it to you in params[:form]. It's just too easy in Rails with a lot of gems lying around for every task you decide to do. And when you're stuck, you're just a google away from getting your answer.
So my question is: after learning Haskell, do you intend to stick to it? Did I make a wise decision in ditching Haskell?
Comparing a statically typed language to a dynamically typed language is silly when talking about type signatures. Of course you don't have type annotations in Ruby, it's a dynamic language. But it also means you don't get compile-time guarantees.
Ask yourself what would be the type signature of a similar function in another statically typed language. You have a parametrized type with three parameters, which would give you something like:
MForm<Blog, Blog, SomeFormResultWithWidget>
And SomeFormResultWithWidget would have to be defined elsewhere. I'm not convinced it's clearer than the Haskell version. And you could easily remove the verbosity of the Haskell version with a type alias.
The real fun with type aliases is that GHC rarely uses them in error messages. So you get about 20 lines of type vomit whenever something refuses to compile and then you get to try to piece it back together into a level of abstraction that humans can handle.
IIRC, Valve negotiates a different cut with each developer, and requires them to keep their terms secret. I would not be surprised if Activision ended with more favorable terms than your average indie studio.
