This is not what "subjective" means. You can't argue something is subjective because many people don't agree with an opinion.
When someone argues subjectivity (in a negative sense), they need to show that the opinion does not rely on facts, rather it's based on... nothing (feelings).
I offered a very easy way to numerically assess the negative impact of poor language design choices made by Haskell designers. It's not about what I "feel" about the language: in Java, you write three-words program, and you get, usually, a unique interpretation. In Haskell, you write a three-words program, and you get 9 (nine) possible interpretations. It's impossible for a human to examine nine interpretations simultaneously and figure out which of them are valid and might fit the context. So, reading a Haskell program takes longer and requires more effort than a Java program.
Of course, Haskell programmers find ways to adapt to their misfortune. They try to avoid pathological cases (eg. writing four-words programs, let alone five!), they memorize a lot of acronyms and non-typographical symbols that they later use to prune the search for a possible meaning of the program. They invent conventions on top of the bare language design that constrain the search space for possible programs to make their task easier.
It's absolutely possible that after layers of conventions and a long time spent memorizing various acronyms and symbols, Haskell programmers catch up to speed of programmers in other languages: after all, the superficial difficulties with the language might seem like a small price to pay for the access to the language's riches that lay beyond the surface. The language grammar rules cannot account for the entirety of the performance of the programmers who chose to write in the language.
This situation is very similar to the "universal" (claimed, but not in practice) mathematical language, which is extremely difficult to read, write, edit, typeset... yet the tradition of using it prevails and the overwhelming majority of mathematicians use, and prefer using the "universal" mathematical language even though much saner alternatives exist.
There aren't a lot of Haskell programmers, so "lots" is maybe an exaggeration.
I see OP's point. Haskell feels (or felt, I admit I haven't been keeping up the last 15 years) needlessly obtuse sometimes, like how people love to invent new infix operators all the time.
The original comment was "I think that though we are a railway company, we consider ourselves a city-shaping company." Kyoto is absolutely not built around its station. Walk a few blocks away and there's nothing but regular apartments! The true centre is Shijo Kawaramachi.
That is an important piece of context that isn't mentioned in the linked article. Instead, the state department makes it seem like they were kicked out for espousing opinions that the government doesn't like.
This isn't the right framing IMO. Closures actually aren't complicated with GC for the same reason structs with references aren't complicated, at least as far as the programmer is concerned. You could say functional languages "hide the mess" there too, but even if you take that perspective, it's nothing to do with closures in particular. Closures are just one of the things that need memory, and memory management is tricky without GC.
I haven't worked in construction for over a decade, but I remember my Bosch tools being quite good. I would have loved to be able to afford Hilti though. Bosch is pro-sumer grade, so it wouldn't surprise me if they've enshittified as well; however Hilti tools are for professionals (and priced as such), so if you have deep pockets that's probably the best bet.
I've read that after Commodus was assassinated, Rome tired to scrub his existence from history. I don't know why I'm mentioning this; it's completely unrelated.
reply