This is not directly related to Haskell, but it's a thought that occurred to me after exposure to the Haskell community. I've spent most of the past 15 years doing scientific programming. The lead software architect and software managers are using good software engineering practice, though (this is *scientific* programming, not *programming by scientists*, ha ha). But, there is a particular culture in my company that has become more obvious to me by contrast to the Haskell community. I call it "design by negation." When asked to justify his design, the lead software architect explains everything that *wouldn't* work. "We couldn't have a unique key for every entry because blah blah blah. We couldn't use a garbage collector because blah blah. We couldn't write a sugar layer because then you have to document it separately blah blah." So the chosen design seems to be the only thing left after eliminating everything you can't do. I want to aspire to "positive design." I want to list the goals, and think of design as making clever choices that meet all the goals. I don't mean to suggest that design is never constrained. It often is. But it's a mindset I'm talking about. I don't like this mindset of design by negation. -Mike