> What I'm saying is that different languages have different paths of desire, and the kinds of problems identified in the original article are more the kind of problems that tend to crop up with heavy use of types, than they are the kind of problem that has much of anything to do with functional programming.
I don't think this is correct at all. I don't think TFA has anything at all to do with types or FP (despite the clickbaity title), as numerous other people here have already pointed out. The article isn't attacking rigid types. The author's point is that no single-program analysis — typed or untyped — covers the version boundary (or system boundaries more generally).
A Haskell service that receives an unknown enum variant doesn't have to crash — you parse the cases you care about and ignore the rest. The "path of desire" you're describing isn't a property of the language.
I suppose "path of desire" here is a matter of opinion. In my experience, crashing on unknown inputs is not idiomatic Haskell, nor is it desirable.
