I agree that the line of reasoning in the parent comment is flawed ("if Facebook is using it, then we can use it too") and that making a language decision is ve

I agree that the line of reasoning in the parent comment is flawed ("if Facebook is using it, then we can use it too") and that making a language decision is very much about picking the right tool for the job. However, I think the comment touches on a truth: public perception matters in language decisions. A tool which is perceived to only be useful to academics and tinkerers often times won't make it onto the short list, even when it merits being there. Seeing that Facebook can use this tool effectively at scale might mitigate the early adoption risk that many feel, and let them concentrate on evaluating Haskell for how it fits the problem. Without the validation of seeing it used for large, real-world systems, it might never make it that far.