[lolive]

(Sorry for my poor english but i need some clarification) Do you put Go, Elixir and Elm is the same bag, i.e langages a step further JS in term of abstraction, i.e langages easy to understand when you come from plain JS? And then, you put Purescript and Haskell in another bag, i.e langages with advanced abstractions absent from "casual" langages, i.e langages requiring a lot of effort to learn? Did I summarize your idea correctly?

[a-saleh]

I think understood the Elm/Haskell/Purescript, i.e:

Javascript dev sees Elm and might think "Wow,a type-system and it is awesome, didn't expect that"

Haskell dev sees Elm and might think "I am missing so many features with these types" and consider something else, probably pure-script, that has similar toolbelt.

Not sure about the rest though.

[noelwelsh]

a-saleh is correct. Regarding Go and Elixir, I think Ruby / Python seem them and think "wow, I can program in a familiar style and I get performance and concurrency!" Haskell etc. people look at them and think "this smells."