Luckily, that would still lead to affordable housing, because "just build housing" is what actually makes housing affordable.

Do they, though? I don't know how familiar you are with the German political parties, but the concern about climate change is mostly empty marketing on all sides. We should stop running coal electricity plants, but somehow turning off all nuclear plants immediately is more important. We should stop subsidising driving to work, but that would be regressive etc. Most parties are making noises about climate change being bad, but they're all pretty unwilling to accept any trade-offs involved in doing something about it.

I'm saying if you want something effective do be done, look at what the parties are actually proposing to do, not how concerned they're expressing to be in their election flyers.

But as a voter who is in favour of a higher CO2 tax, why would you care about that distinction? If there's one party who thinks climate change doesn't exist and one who believes in climate change but is unwilling to do anything about it, the only difference between the parties is in their rhetoric. I'd argue that voting based on actual policy proposals a benefit, not a drawback of this approach.

All the ML dialects that I know have a zip function and ML pre-dates Python by about 20 years. This is particularly relevant since Rust is clearly strongly influenced by ML.

> The fact that those are functional I think is not particularly relevant. It's like someone seeing a comparison of Java and Go and saying that those are just the principles of imperative programming, or object oriented programming.

The comparison feels right, but I think it would certainly be odd if somebody explained loops in Go as "a Java idiom".

Religious beliefs seem to fall squarely in the latter category (at least to the extent that political views do). Are you really comfortable with people discriminating on that basis?

That is completely untrue. Lars isn't exactly a rare name in Germany, but I'd be surprised if it was even one of the 20 most common first names. It's definitely nowhere near 1/5th of the population.

Edit: match doesn't insist on a default clause, it enforces exhaustiveness. Which can be achieved by having a default clause, but quite often you just have an explicit branch for every possible case.

> 1st phone interview (screening) -> 2nd phone interview (technical) -> [crickets]

I get it, we are all busy, but I think sending a "No, thanks" email to applicants who have spent time on your interviews isn't asking too much.

I've analysed all bug tickets for a Python system at a previous job for several months, tracking how many of our bugs would have been prevented by a Haskell-style type system. This isn't very scientific either, but for my sample it was somewhere between 70%-90% depending on your interpretation. I'm not saying this generalises to all projects, but I can definitely say that the 2%-number is hilariously wrong.

I'm not convinced that's true. Rust is even stricter than Haskell in many respects (first example that comes to mind is incomplete pattern matches, which is a compiler error in rust) and strictness also avoids some run-time errors. I've managed to produce infinite loops in Haskell by accidentally defining recursive values more than once.