>Fashion? Haskell's core abstractions are not design patterns du jour. They're math. They're not going away.
That doesn't really make any sense. Just because the abstractions have some kind of Platonic existence doesn't mean that people are going to keep using them.
Significant use of applicatives in day-to-day code is a relatively new development in the Haskell community. I used to write a fair bit of Haskell code around five or six years ago (well beyond basic Haskell 98), but the operators in that code were not familiar to me. (They may have been once, but I clearly didn't come across them often enough to remember them.) It's easy enough to understand the code once you look up the operators, but Haskell does seem to be gradually collecting a lot of abstractive cruft.
There's something to be said for deploying the fancier abstractions when they significantly reduce code size, rather than whenever you possibly can.
That doesn't really make any sense. Just because the abstractions have some kind of Platonic existence doesn't mean that people are going to keep using them.
Significant use of applicatives in day-to-day code is a relatively new development in the Haskell community. I used to write a fair bit of Haskell code around five or six years ago (well beyond basic Haskell 98), but the operators in that code were not familiar to me. (They may have been once, but I clearly didn't come across them often enough to remember them.) It's easy enough to understand the code once you look up the operators, but Haskell does seem to be gradually collecting a lot of abstractive cruft.
There's something to be said for deploying the fancier abstractions when they significantly reduce code size, rather than whenever you possibly can.