>The underlying paradigms aren't that terribly different, but the actual terminology for expressing ideas idiomatically is wildly different, and represents an u

>The underlying paradigms aren't that terribly different, but the actual terminology for expressing ideas idiomatically is wildly different, and represents an unusual obstacle. Haskell uses a lot of terminology that's familiar to mathematicians, but unfamiliar to everyone else. CL uses a lot of strange terminology, because it incorporated concepts before their names were standardized and used in other languages. You're left spending a lot of time trying to figure out that a wheel is called a frob or you just end up re-inventing the wheel even though the frob was already in the standard.