intoverflow

Not every program is written in the context of "I need to pick a language to use at my desk job." In fact, a great deal of software is very obviously not written in this context.

Sure, though the authors of these applications would tell you that the language did make these activities easier.

Of course, "make new things possible" is a tricky thing to make sense of. What new thing did Python make possible? Or Ruby? Or PHP? Or Perl?

This is a bit unfair. Every code repository has this sort of thing. The quality of a repository shouldn't be the ratio of [no-external-dependency + extremely mature] projects, but rather should be based on whether or not people can find what they need there. I'd argue that Hackage has that.

As for being full of bindings to languages written in other libraries, why is that a bad thing? In general, these libraries are common, cross platform, and thoroughly tested. Isn't code-reuse worth something?

This isn't a "spending credibility" situation. Credibility is something you need when you're asking someone to believe something based on your authority. In this case, I wrote an article filled with links with the hope that the reader could evaluate the claim based on that material.

Besides, I don't think I should need to spend all of my waking time coding; I already spend several hours a day doing that. Why can't I take a break to argue that Haskell's tools make the language more production focused than most people realize?