Very disappointed by the non-announcement. If it were a corp, it would be FUD. I'm curious as to what these different trade-offs are. > My conclusion is that

Very disappointed by the non-announcement. If it were a corp, it would be FUD. I'm curious as to what these different trade-offs are. > My conclusion is that there are major, well-justified reasons for why people strongly dislike functional languages. My conclusion is because most everyone is taught to think empirically and 'play computer' that functional doesn't fit in their preconceived brains. I once had someone say SQL didn't make sense because it's SELECTing fields (i.e. vars) before they're defined/assigned later in the (binding) expressions. People having trouble with FP is like how people who learn databases using ORM's don't deal well with SQL as expressions of set operations. There are varying limits to how much people like and handle abstract constructs before applying the construction to the data at hand but you can do a whole lot of effective and unsurprising development before getting to such esoteric levels. Edit: I was super-excited to open the link, and now on re-reading expect this new FP language to be as much an advancement as Go was to 'systems' programming. I hope I'm mistaken. Also odd that only Haskell and Lisp were mentioned when there are so many others. On the plus-side if Google were to make F# and back it as well as they have Go, that would be a win-win.