In practice they're always (?!) about the userbase.
Everything's got exceptions but it's usually a punch by proxy. This would be really obvious if it was anything else.
If someone started making fun of say basketball, keeping it not about the people who play and are fans would be quite a precipice to navigate.
You could certainly complain about the technicals of the rules but you're no longer in the world of jokes.
Given that, Haskell, unless you're a mathematician, is still one of the least accessible language outside of purely academic, esoteric or intentionally obfuscated ones.
> Given that, Haskell, unless you're a mathematician, is still one of the least accessible language outside of purely academic, esoteric or intentionally obfuscated ones.
Tiny nitpick: Haskell the language and runtime is just another ML. You could technically write a ground-up Haskell program that doesn't do any maths stuff — in about the same way that you can write a ground-up Erlang program that doesn't use OTP.
Haskell just has a standard library and language-package ecosystem that's full of stuff only mathematicians were previously expected to understand. :)
An elite is a subset that was drawn out of a pool. The set of very rich people is a small subset: an elite. The group of prisoners chosen for execution today is also an elite.
I can't see how those statements in any way define any sort of population subset.
The elite is associated with accuracy, cleanliness of execution, precision, correctness, an ability to be flexible and expressive while maintaining refined control and precision.
Take olympic athletes or orchestral musicians for instance.
If say a violinist said they only used a particular violin because it was that which was correct and expressive, that's much closer to elitist than say egalitarianism.
