A Case Against Currying - emih.com

What benefit does drawing a distinction between parameter list and single-parameter tuple style bring?

I'm failing to see how they're not isomorphic.

The tuple style can't be curried (in Haskell).

That's not what I'm talking about.

The article draws a three way distinction between curried style (à la Haskell), tuples and parameter list.

I'm talking about the distinction it claims exists between the latter two.

That's a fair point, they are all isomorphic.

The distinction is mostly semantic so you could say they are the same. But I thought it makes sense to emphasize that the former is a feature of function types, and the latter is still technically single-parameter.

Currying was recently removed from Coalton: https://coalton-lang.github.io/20260312-coalton0p2/#fixed-ar...
A Preview of Coalton 0.2

By Robert Smith Coalton is a statically typed functional programming language that lives inside Common Lisp. It has had an exciting few years. It is being used for industrial purposes, being put to its limits as a production language to build good, reliable, efficient, and robust products. Happily, with Coalton, many products shipped with tremendous success. But as we built these products, we noticed gaps in the language. As such, we’re setting the stage for the next tranche of Coalton work, and we’re going to preview some of these improvements here, including how Coalton can prove $\sqrt{2+\sqrt{3}} = \sqrt{2}(\sqrt{3}+1)/2$ exactly.

The Coalton Programming Language
I'm biased here since the easy currying is by far my favourite feature in Haskell (it always bothers me that I have to explicitly create a lamba in Lisps) but the arguments in the article don't convince me, what with the synctactic overhead for the "tuple style".