>I see parallels with Haskell You are seeing things. >I'm not saying this is wrong. What I am saying is that the gap between making something 99% consistent a

>I see parallels with Haskell You are seeing things. >I'm not saying this is wrong. What I am saying is that the gap between making something 99% consistent and 100% consistent is often huge in terms of complexity. Haskell is a very simple, very consistent language. That is one of its biggest strengths. >The answer is (again, IMHO) is that simplicity matters. Except that lisp is not complex. Especially consider scheme, which is very simple and consistent. >It's true functional programming does change the way you think but I think writing idiomatic Python or Ruby will get you much the same benefit at much lower cost. Having gone from "I see the benefits of functional programming, but think a multi-paradigm language is the right way to do it" to outright revulsion when stuck using multi-paradigm languages, I think you might change your mind if you actually tried it. Ocaml and scala certainly sold me on haskell.