[yakshaving_jgt]

> In practice, much of the article seems to be about the problems introduced by rigid typing … But that's a non-issue in the FP languages mentioned above since they tend towards the use of unstructured data

Haskell doesn’t have this problem. None of the “rigid typing” languages have this problem.

You are in complete control of how strictly or how leniently you parse values. If you want to derive a parser for a domain-specific type, you can. If you want to write one, you can. If you want to parse values into more generic types, you can.

This is one of those fundamental misunderstandings that too many programmers have, and it seems like it’ll never die.

[troad]

But naturally the more you type, the more benefits and costs you accrue associated with typing. I'm not sure what the misunderstanding is. Of course you could write a C program entirely comprised of void*, but why would you? Equally, of course you could write a Clojure program with rigid type enforcement, but again, why would you? You're fighting against the strengths of your tools.

You don't pick up Haskell just to spend all your time passing around unstructured data, any more than you opt into the overhead of TS just so you can declare everything as `any`.

[yakshaving_jgt]

Your understanding is 100% wrong.

You do not understand how typing works in Haskell. You are free to work with primitives as much as you like.