At a 50000 foot level, I will accept your statement. Concepts composition is a delightful property. But at a lower level, it is a slog. I have tried somewhat h

At a 50000 foot level, I will accept your statement. Concepts composition is a delightful property. But at a lower level, it is a slog. I have tried somewhat hard (e.g understanding different monads, writing a tutorial --- doesn't everybody?) to plough through the language and the libraries, but after some point I got tired having to learn one more new concept, one more language extension, all for doing fairly routine things. Now, I'm reasonably confident that I _could_ master it if my life depended on it, but it feels so .... tedious. > it's simpler than whatever "real life" technology you are proficient in. That has certainly not been my experience, alas. I'm constantly unsure of whether a piece of code is idiomatic enough, abstract enough or whether it is a simple composition of some other concepts. I suppose there is a particular hump beyond which these things click into place, but I haven't come close to it. Secondly, producing any real life technology requires me to fit that tech and Haskell bindings (should they exist) together in one brain. That said, Haskell's been a wonderful fit for writing a compiler for a pet toy language. And monads changed the way I write code in mainstream languages.