succinctness

But the general approach of haskell for succinctness is a good one.

Now that's the succinctness I'd expect from an actual scripting language

But gaining succinctness is hardly the major win of dynamic languages.

It's a bit more succinct, perhaps, but when you're calling out to Cocoa all the time, that succinctness is going to get thrown out the window.

Unfortunately, in my quest for succinctness, I created a post that may be construed as suboptimal.

He was anticipating the argument that succinctness leads to unreadable code.

My only point is this: as a budding Haskell enthusiast I am constantly shocked by the difference in succinctness between my solutions and those of the experts.

It's got a lot of Haskell's succinctness, power, and functional goodness without becoming a tangled mess of indecipherable symbols.

Haskell has a radically different syntax, but it does things with that syntax and its pervasive currying to enable a powerful succinctness that one can not imagine being translated back into the Algol-esque framework.

Well, succinctness is an advantage, and I'll claim with no data to support me that it is the reason, combined with the lack of compilation, that most developers choose dynamic languages, without necessarily realizing what they are giving up.