Here is my take as someone who could but chooses not to use fp. When I look at “good haskell” I see it dominated with comments written in procedural english des

Here is my take as someone who could but chooses not to use fp. When I look at “good haskell” I see it dominated with comments written in procedural english describing what the code does e.g. http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pretty-1.1.1.1/docs/src/Text-PrettyPrint-HughesPJ.html http://hackage.haskell.org/package/pretty-1.1.1.1/docs/src/T... Haskell requires this because, lets be frank, its really hard to understand. I can hear the howls of anger but if you ask “man in the street”, will he do a better job explaining the above haskell sans comments or a similar pretty printer written in VB? I have CS background, studied FP and type theory, but I am more like the man in the street. What I want from a programming language is an executable description of what I want to achieve. I want that description to have all the good qualities sought in fp but more importantly I want it to flow into and out of my brain (and my colleague’s brains) like butter not like a sudoku puzzle trapped in a type theory proof and then Huffman encoded (because descriptive names are the preserve of all those "terrible java programmers"). In the real world, I need to write code that makes fast incremental changes to large interconnected data-structures e.g. graphs and trees with indexes and all sorts. I cannot begin to imagine how to solve half my problems with immutable data-structures. With what I know at the moment, it would be a massive obstacle to the real problems I need to solve.