I'd suggest evaluating tools on an as-needed basis, instead of wholesale rejection. And I'd 100% agree that the article could've benefited from a "Why Haskell, specifically" section. But really, few things are unequivocally useless. (Or good, for that matter)
(I'd also suggest that you meant 'recoiled', not 'rebuked')
The article has nothing to do with Haskell, other than it's what I use. Why should I have to justify that when I want to talk about architecture diagrams?
Would the same expectation be in place of my examples were in JavaScript? I doubt it.
groby_b|3 years ago
(I'd also suggest that you meant 'recoiled', not 'rebuked')
pufuwozu|3 years ago
Would the same expectation be in place of my examples were in JavaScript? I doubt it.
headsoup|3 years ago