>"you have to write clever, complicated code to make haskell work" Haha, no. I write pretty dumb Haskell myself. The author might've tripped into a library bey

>"you have to write clever, complicated code to make haskell work" Haha, no. I write pretty dumb Haskell myself. The author might've tripped into a library beyond their faculties. Also possible, they might've tried to make something "practical" before they really knew what they were doing. I made this mistake in the past myself. The library I've been working on makes my boring Haskell obvious: https://github.com/bitemyapp/bloodhound/ https://github.com/bitemyapp/bloodhound/ I even tweeted a sample of my code making fun of how "stupid-simple" my Haskell is :) I might refine the code later, but for now I'd rather KISS until I'm prepared to firm up the design. You can get down a rabbit-hole with Haskell if you want, but the same is equally true of Clojure/Scala/C++/Ruby/Python/Perl. Even then, the rabbit-hole at least has typed hand-rails. Negatives? Uhhh, missing libraries (which I am working to help remedy) You develop a "nose" for libraries for which you aren't the audience. It's not a big or unavoidable negative, but there are definitely libraries on Hackage made to prove a point rather than for use in production. These libraries are easy to identify. Some of them are prefixed acme-* The primary negative that matters is simply that Haskell is deeply unfamiliar to most working programmers, so while it's 100% worth it, the road to Haskell isn't as well-trodden or smooth as it would be going between Python <---> Ruby. I'm working to remedy this as well. I've been teaching Haskell for the last ~6 months.