Haskell has it’s fair share of problems, the major one being pointed out in this article, that in spite of all of SPJ’s noble efforts it’s still primarily stuck

Haskell has it’s fair share of problems, the major one being pointed out in this article, that in spite of all of SPJ’s noble efforts it’s still primarily stuck in the “ivory tower”, bogged down by tons of libs and docs that are full of academic or theoretical jargon, and unfortunately plagued in some sub communities, by people that have intellectual superiority complexes, which makes it alienating to a large number of potential users and leads to bitter posts like this. But in terms of the language itself, I really don’t see the issues raised here and the author of the article comes off as having not understood the language very well. Libraries like Euterpea show that the language is insanely expressive and that they’ve, IMO, created a language that is very solid from a language design perspective. Sure there are wrinkles like records, but otherwise it’s generally pretty great from an expressive power standpoint. Communication only works when people are speaking the same language. Of course you are going to struggle when that language is different than what you are used to (lazy, functional, pure) but if you spend time in language classes and eventually learn it, you’ll find that you can probably communicate your ideas just as well in this language too. If you decide you don’t like the sound of the language then don’t communicate in it, but that’s your choice, it’s not a knock on the language itself. This article feels like it was written by someone that struggled to learn Haskell and gave up and ranted about it rather than persevering or simply deciding it wasn’t for them and moving on. If you are comparing functors to objects in OOP I don’t think you actually groked it.