Haskell and Rust
I think the comparison dwells on superficial similarities. Rust&#x27;s type system is absolutely necessary to ensure a certain kind of safety under the requirements Rust adopted for itself in order to address certain domains (like no tracing GC), namely a guarantee of no undefined behavior, common in those domains. This safety (or something very close to it) exists in every so-called &quot;managed&quot; language anyway, be it Python, Java or Haskell, regardless of their type system, so the goal of the type system in Rust and in Haskell -- at least as far as safety goes -- is obviously very different.<p>Moreover, such safety is not at all what is normally considered &quot;correctness&quot; in the field of software correctness; the term normally refers to <i>functional</i> correctness, i.e. that the program satisfies the specification, not that it doesn&#x27;t have undefined behavior. On that front, there seems to be no evidence, nor even hints, that either Haskell or Rust do better, or worse, than other languages developed in recent decades. It&#x27;s a myth, albeit one that&#x27;s often repeated in some circles.<p>That&#x27;s not to say that type systems cannot be hugely valuable, and sometimes even necessary. For Rust, the type system is what ensures undefined-behavior-safety. In other languages it has many other advantages as well. Some type systems are even intended for correctness. But Rust&#x27;s type system, and certainly Haskell&#x27;s are not. Both are interesting though expressively &quot;weak&quot; type systems, of the kind that has not been found to be correlated with higher correctness. So focusing on <i>that</i> as the point of comparison completely misses the mark.