pedantic, but I really wouldn't call Python a hybrid language on the same level as F# and Scala. Python's functional programming capabilities are pretty poor (n

pedantic, but I really wouldn't call Python a hybrid language on the same level as F# and Scala. Python's functional programming capabilities are pretty poor (not to mention that things like TCO are missing). Not to say that Python is a bad language, but having continuously tried to program in a functional style I've found that more iterative-seeming code ends up being more idiomatic and maintainable. > do think that the Haskell community has failed (but is it a failure or a deliberate choice not-to?) to package a not-that-hard language as something average programmers can understand. That is extremely true. Even in widely-used packages, you'll rarely find good official documentation (quickstarts or the like). Sure, for a lot of packages , types are good enough (if you have a package to read a CSV file, all you need to do is find the CSVConf -> Handle -> [[String]] function), but with the bigger, more framework-y packages, there are so many types internal to the system that you _have_ to read through everything to do even simple things. Too much time is spent trying to explain how the language (which ends up being simple) works and not enough time on practical guides on how to actually do things. This has become a bit of a rant, but in Math (the kind most people go through in middle school), you always learn specific cases before going into general theory. Unfortunately, a lot of Haskellers end up being mathematicians of the PhD style, where they're fine with just going into general theory. Examples are useful!