> Thus, instead of our discourse being about semantics, engineering quality, and implementation, we instead discuss our tools in terms of social factors and emotions (i.e. it “feels readable”, “feels usable”, “feels fast”).
Thinking about readability or usability as emotions and social factors, rather than as first level concerns, is a non starter to me, and I find it extremely off putting that the author seems to pile up those qualities in the marketing "group", as if they were not real properties of a language.
You can design a drill in a way that makes it the most scientifically correct at using the power it's supplied efficiently, but if the design hurts the users hands and requires months of training to operate, any worker will throw it in the trash, because they can drill things just fine with a regular tool.
(I'm not necessarily saying that Haskell is that drill, just saying that usability should never be treated with condescension when you're designing tools).