Haskell, Ada, C++: An Experiment in Prototyping Productivity (1994) [pdf]
What this tells me most of all, is that humans will only acknowledge the legitimacy of studies that support their predetermined opinions.<p>The arguments for and against a type system like Haskell&#x27;s have been going on seemingly forever, and the commonly parroted line from <i>e.g.</i>, Clojure or JavaScript enthusiasts (like the curly-haired San Francisco guy) is that there has never been a single study to support the idea that a type system like Haskell&#x27;s is generally a cheaper way to write reasonably robust software. Point them to a study like this, and you&#x27;re met with &quot;Nuh-uh! Not valid! Nope!&quot;<p>My observation is supported by section 7, &quot;Lessons Learned&quot;.<p>&gt; …The reaction from the other participants, however, in particular those not familiar with the advantages of functional programming, was somewhat surprising, and is worth some discussion.…<p>&gt; …In conducting the independent design review at Intermetrics, there was a significance sense of disbelief.<p>&gt; …some observers have simply discounted the results because in their minds the use of higher-order functions to capture regions was just a trick that would probably not be useful in other contexts. One observer described the solution as “cute but not extensible”<p>&gt; We mention these responses because they must be anticipated in the future. If functional languages are to become more widely used, various sociological and psychological barriers must be overcome. As a community we should be aware of these barriers and realize that they will not disappear overnight.<p>They&#x27;re right. These barriers haven&#x27;t disappeared overnight. They haven&#x27;t even disappeared after a quarter of a century. People <i>still</i> come up with stupid reasons why they don&#x27;t like Haskell.