I'd argue that the informative value is pretty much zero: If a programmer is familiar with lambda calculus, lazy languages, and algebraic types, then there's just no way that person isn't also somewhat familiar with haskell. The explanation is gibberish for those who need it, so its only use is to be self congratulatory for those who don't.
This point of view is alien to me. Why, when you see words you don’t understand, don’t you make an effort to learn what they mean? How on earth did you ever become a coder with this kind of attitude?
I do understand them, I'm into functional programming and I've toyed with haskell in the past. I'm just aware that such a definition makes it sound more daunting than it really is, mostly because of that "just".
It's kinda like the running joke of "a monad is a monoid in the category of endofunctors, what's so hard about it?", but said in a non-sarcastical manner.
I would assume that some haskell knowledge is assumed, and the author is simply framing the conversation by stating their view of haskell as a set of core features, which they named.
Why do you say "self congratulatory" and not "communicative"? You are assuming your conclusion: that it was snobby. But it wasn't. It was just informative, provided, yes, you knew what the words meant.
The author is communicating with other people who know about the space of programming languages, and describing Haskell in a particular way to show its surface area.
