I really enjoyed this. Just wanted to comment on the author's brief comments on Elm.
> As of yet, there is no rich polymorphism or higher-kinded types. As such a whole family of the usual functional constructions (monoids, functors, applicatives, monads) are inexpressible.
I completely understand that this make Elm quite limited compared to Haskell as the author uses it, but these limitations are precisely what makes Elm accessible to newcomers. I think it's a great way to get people into Haskell syntax like partial application and into the functional way of thinking in general.
I have learned Haskell very gradually over the past 6 years, and I still find advanced Haskell with all the language extensions very daunting to get into.
> As of yet, there is no rich polymorphism or higher-kinded types. As such a whole family of the usual functional constructions (monoids, functors, applicatives, monads) are inexpressible.
I completely understand that this make Elm quite limited compared to Haskell as the author uses it, but these limitations are precisely what makes Elm accessible to newcomers. I think it's a great way to get people into Haskell syntax like partial application and into the functional way of thinking in general.
I have learned Haskell very gradually over the past 6 years, and I still find advanced Haskell with all the language extensions very daunting to get into.