Hm. I think this is false, in at least one large domain: data management, and that's quite a whopper. Jeff Davis wrote about it better than I can: http://thoug

Hm. I think this is false, in at least one large domain: data management, and that's quite a whopper. Jeff Davis wrote about it better than I can: http://thoughts.j-davis.com/2011/09/25/sql-the-successful-cousin-of-haskell/ http://thoughts.j-davis.com/2011/09/25/sql-the-successful-co... Without any real data other than my own anecdotal experience, I think the principal problem with Haskell is not the semantics or the syntax, but the usability of the entire toolchain and ecosystem, as well as just not catching a lucky break that could allow it to overcome those shortcomings or have them ignored. Consider the string rather than list-oriented nature of "sh" and family: just about everyone I know feels that was a bad idea, yet we live with it because of some artifacts of it being in the right time and place. I don't know if anyone has the resources and the focus on usability of the Haskell toolchain, or if the community feels a drive to improve in these aspects to take on those problems collectively: finding a better way to render type errors doesn't seem high on the list, as far as I know. I hope something improves though: that new deferred type-error mode in GHC looks pretty awesome, and a step in the right direction. I look forward to trying Haskell again. Some time.