> And advanced type systems are not unique to functional languages.
"Advanced type system" does not really mean much. A bit like the weak/strong static typing distinction. However there are still significant differences between the c#/java/scala family and the haskell one. The fact that objects are not nullable by default and the absence of subtyping are considered as two big advantages for many people.
> Also, what's up with all the single-letter variable names?
when the code is abstract and the scope of a variable is less than three lines, it can be ok to use one letter for its name.
If we are talking about haskell, mutability is absolutely an option when it is the only way to write fast code. This is exactly what is done here: http://www.serpentine.com/blog/2015/05/13/sometimes-the-old-...
> And advanced type systems are not unique to functional languages.
"Advanced type system" does not really mean much. A bit like the weak/strong static typing distinction. However there are still significant differences between the c#/java/scala family and the haskell one. The fact that objects are not nullable by default and the absence of subtyping are considered as two big advantages for many people.
> Also, what's up with all the single-letter variable names?
when the code is abstract and the scope of a variable is less than three lines, it can be ok to use one letter for its name.