[DonaldFisk]

Many, perhaps most, programmers from mainstream languages (i.e. Algol derivatives) find it difficult to get their heads around Haskell in particular and functional programming in general (including Lisp). This is not a problem with Haskell.

[tdeck]

This is the excuse we've been hearing for the past 20 years. "It's not a problem with the language/paradigm, it's a problem with you/humanity".

[mbrock]

I learned Haskell in school. Then I worked with it in a web startup. I've done fun hobby projects with it. I really enjoy it a lot. I'm not super smart and I don't know any advanced math. I'm not sure what the problem is at all. The language works fine, has a vibrant community, it's growing, and it's inspiring lots of programmers and language designers too.

[DonaldFisk]

I don't think I'll ever be a great concert pianist, but I just accept this as one of my limitations. I have never put in the necessary effort, and even if I did, I doubt I would have the required amount of talent. It would never have occurred to me to blame it on pianos.

[tdeck]

And if the piano were an instrument almost nobody used and on which almost no popular or well-regarded music were played or composed, I'd agree with this snarky reply. This isn't a particularly apt analogy because concert pianists are judged by their output (i.e. piano music). The argument from the Haskell community seems to be that almost nobody is interested in using the tool (Haskell) for its intended purpose (writing software) because the people themselves are deficient. Haskell is a character-building exercise to write blog posts about, even after all these years, rather than something to be adopted in production.

And before you think I'm just hating on Haskell, the same is essentially true of Lisp as well.

[DonaldFisk]

My position is that learning functional programming lies within the grasp of many if not most programmers if they put in the necessary effort, and well worthwhile as it will make them better programmers as they will then see ways of solving problems that hitherto wouldn't have occurred to them, or are painful to implement in other languages. I wouldn't be put off a language (whether Haskell or Lisp) simply because some of its programmers come across as a bit condescending.

[pekk]

Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design.

In the case of Haskell, it is taken as a badge of virtue, and it is a matter of faith that the problem is just that all other programming languages have mis-educated everyone who doesn't "get religion" about Haskell.

If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell.

[the_af]

Haskell's interface isn't intentionally unintelligible. In fact, it's not unintelligible at all (don't confuse playful exploratory code with standard code, just like you wouldn't think obfuscated C is standard). It's just that you're unfamiliar with it. Most ideas behind Haskell are quite logical and systematic.

[gertef]

Haskell's "badge of virtue" is that it's unpopularity has freed the language creators to improve the language, to get closer to solving the extremely sophisticated problem it is trying to solve (completely safe, efficient, correct programs), without breaking anyone; not that others are miseducated

[elihu]

...and yet, some people really like programming in Haskell, and use it for all sorts of problems. Do you think they're all just pretending to have fun, or that they're obliviously unaware of the merits of mainstream languages like Java, Python, or Javascript?

[DonaldFisk]

> Usually, in any other area, an interface made intentionally to be unintelligible to the general public as well as a professional target audience would be derided as bad design.

Evidence that Haskell was deliberately made difficult to understand? And supposing this were true, why hasn't anyone made the interface more intelligible?

> If Haskell's interface is hard to understand, that is a problem with Haskell.

That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity.

[dragonwriter]

> That's a bit like saying that if the mathematics used in the General Theory of Relativity is hard to understand, it is a problem with the General Theory of Relativity.

Well, but that's true; if there were easier-to-understand mathematics that had equal utility, it would be superior. The math being hard to understand is a problem, but (as far as anyone can tell), its a necessary cost with General Relativity.

So, for Haskell -- granting, for the sake of argument, that it is particularly hard to understand (which I'm not sure is really the case) -- the question is the complexity a necessary price for some benefit that is worth the cost?