A Haskeller tried convincing me that such a language is a good fit for human programmers, too, because all it is is a subset of more traditional, impure languag

A Haskeller tried convincing me that such a language is a good fit for human programmers, too, because all it is is a subset of more traditional, impure languages. But the notion of subset => simpler is a mathematical notion with no relevance to cognition. If humans operated in this way, natural languages would have been much more mathematically simpler, too. - I totally agree on this point and I've tried my hand at Haskell several times only to find myself going to some other language like F#, OCaml, or Common Lisp. It just feels too 'stiff' in terms of a programming language. I can't seem to write in it without running into its limitations (Not strictness. I can handle strictness in a language.). When I write a program I think about what I have to pull data from and what the data should become along the way. Even if parts of my program will be standardized into a library for a project I still like being able to get it setup in such a way that I can modify it easily. Haskell doesn't seem to let me do that without redoing the entire function signatures and sometimes due to the notation the signatures don't fit the data well if at all.