> when simple tasks start to look like complicated puzzles with many possible solutions, I get really put off. Doesn't every language do this? Often I spend mo

> when simple tasks start to look like complicated puzzles with many possible solutions, I get really put off. Doesn't every language do this? Often I spend more time trying to decipher a C program than I do actually writing C code. With all of the variables, pointers, and mutation happening it can feel like a complicated puzzle and I get really put off. What often happens is that the Haskell you read about online is far more theoretical than what you actually need to get practical work done using the language. It's often called that "Haskell Pyramid" or some such. The only way I know of to "learn to like Haskell," is to not try but simply do it. Start from the beginning. Think of yourself like an empty jar. Put your mind back into the place where you first started programming and go from there. It will be frustrating at first re-learning many concepts you feel that you know but it's the best way IMO. I had to do this in martial arts once... unlearn all the ways my body was used to moving and simply accept that I was going to start over and learn a completely new way. From the beginning. No excuses. No short-cuts. > whose runtime performance I'm uncertain of Reasoning about the run-time performance of Haskell programs is much more tricky, in my experience, than a strictly-evaluated language. At least at first. Like most things in Haskell once you are comfortable with the fundamentals you learn how the run-time works and ways to write strictly-evaluated code when performance is a concern.