> What scares me about Haskell is that it seems even people who used it extensively for a while call themselves "intermediate" They're not so much talking abou

> What scares me about Haskell is that it seems even people who used it extensively for a while call themselves "intermediate" They're not so much talking about the language itself, but more about the way thing can be built in it. That's an open-ended problem, since Turing-complete languages let us use any computatable process. I might consider myself a 'Python expert', since I've used it for over a decade, written code at the CPython level, all the way up to the metaclass level, built many projects, written extensively about the language, critiqued and discussed proposed features, taught it to others, etc. Yet I wouldn't consider myself an expert in 'the way things can be built with Python'. For example, I can build Python wrappers for native binaries, but that doesn't imply that I'd come up with a design as clever as numpy. I've done a lot of statistical analysis using Python, but that doesn't mean I could come up with a library as elegant as pyro.ai. And so on. > If something breaks and I need to fix it now, I don't want to be fighting with a language that says, "no-o, no shortcuts, use a proper monad", or takes years to master to that level. What do you mean? System.IO.Unsafe.unsafePerformIO lets us write impure code; Unsafe.Coerce.unsafeCoerce lets us bypass the type system. Is there something else you'd want to do?