imanaccount

If dynamically typed languages are really okay for smaller systmes, than avoiding bad architecture of large tightly-coupled systems in favor of loosely coupled compositions of smaller subsystems means that it is also okay for large systems.

It doesn't mean that at all. You might as well say "if shoes are good enough for going to the corner store, then multiple pairs of shoes are good enough for going to the moon". The notion that large systems are no more complex than small systems if you simply make the large system out of small systems is not supported by anything I can find.

IME, that's why they've historically been harder to read and navigate for humans

That doesn't make any sense at all. How is having information written down instead of having to constantly remember and/or deduce it an impediment to reading?

You don't achieve freedom through bad software. What the hell? Note that the NSA spying on you is also facilitated by all the complex, buggy, broken software we use.

The GPL isn't to blame, the FSF is. Note it is their own license they are incompatible with.

You mean "this library" not "Haskell libraries". Some libraries have real documentation (either on hackage or off) to go with the API reference.

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pipes-4.1.2/docs/Pipes-Tu...

http://hackage.haskell.org/package/aeson-0.7.0.6/docs/Data-A...

I find records are used most heavily in web development, where you are pretty much just shuffling data from browsers to databases and the other way around. But even there the field name thing doesn't pose much of a problem, I prefer defining my records in the module that handles the functions for it, so there's no issue with conflicting names anyways. I found the fact that 'id' is a standard library function to be a bigger minor annoyance.