[groby_b]

I'd suggest evaluating tools on an as-needed basis, instead of wholesale rejection. And I'd 100% agree that the article could've benefited from a "Why Haskell, specifically" section. But really, few things are unequivocally useless. (Or good, for that matter)

(I'd also suggest that you meant 'recoiled', not 'rebuked')

[pufuwozu]

The article has nothing to do with Haskell, other than it's what I use. Why should I have to justify that when I want to talk about architecture diagrams?

Would the same expectation be in place of my examples were in JavaScript? I doubt it.

[groby_b]

It's your article, you don't have to justify anything.

That said, it still would've been nice to hear if Haskell has bought you anything that other languages don't do.

Would I have asked the same question for a JS article? Maybe I wouldn't have asked - I'm a bit more familiar with JS than I'm with Haskell - but a "and here's why I picked those tools" section would still have been interesting. I like hearing how people think about solving problems.

The fate of writing in public: people will always ask for more info on the parts that they're interested in.