By "what" I mean semantically what---I need to know that this function turns a Tree into a List or a Person into a String. I find this information very useful as it's fairly non-operational. Usually functions are further documented with a bit of intent information.
The avoidance of variable names is hard to judge until you program in Haskell a lot. Variables (or "points") tend to just be used to wire pipes together. These variables are rarely used more than a line or two after their definition and thus short names emphasize this local context.
When people write code that involves variables naming mutable cells or long-lived context they provide long, descriptive names. I don't think anyone disagrees about the utility of that. It's just a rare style in Haskell.
The avoidance of variable names is hard to judge until you program in Haskell a lot. Variables (or "points") tend to just be used to wire pipes together. These variables are rarely used more than a line or two after their definition and thus short names emphasize this local context.
When people write code that involves variables naming mutable cells or long-lived context they provide long, descriptive names. I don't think anyone disagrees about the utility of that. It's just a rare style in Haskell.