> Barely typed languages like C made rigorously typed languages like C++ and Java seem appealing. The boilerplatiness of those languages made duck typing seem appealing.
Eh, I consider Java to be barely typed too. If you have a variable of type Foo, the type system doesn't even guarantee that you have a Foo in there (it might be null). The whole point of a type system, in my mind, is to guarantee that I have that Foo!
> Writing anything nontrivial with duck typing made more elaborate type systems seem appealing.
In my mind, this makes type inference seem appealing, not duck typing (which is not well-defined, but most people associate it with dynamic typing).
> Needing a PhD in category theory to produce a side effect will no doubt make some other paradigm seem appealing in the future.
This oft-repeated exaggeration needs to stop. Using monads does not require a PhD in category theory. If you can understand Promises in JavaScript, then you can grasp how IO works in Haskell.
Eh, I consider Java to be barely typed too. If you have a variable of type Foo, the type system doesn't even guarantee that you have a Foo in there (it might be null). The whole point of a type system, in my mind, is to guarantee that I have that Foo!
> Writing anything nontrivial with duck typing made more elaborate type systems seem appealing.
In my mind, this makes type inference seem appealing, not duck typing (which is not well-defined, but most people associate it with dynamic typing).
> Needing a PhD in category theory to produce a side effect will no doubt make some other paradigm seem appealing in the future.
This oft-repeated exaggeration needs to stop. Using monads does not require a PhD in category theory. If you can understand Promises in JavaScript, then you can grasp how IO works in Haskell.