[jmcdiesel]

Yeah, it seems like a step back in readability... It's not at all intuitive and once I figure out what its doing, I can't find a reason for it.. Lisps are hard to read, but there are at least a few reasons for the syntax (not that i like them) ... This just seems... weird and unusual for no reason...

[cnp]

Have you spent much time with it? Like all things, you need to learn before you understand, and then it becomes clear.

[Latty]

I've written a fair amount of Elm, and I still find it awkward. One issue is that I feel like I end up having to go back and add in brackets more than I would with the C-style syntax. I'm not sure if that's just the way I think thanks to being used to that, or an inherent problem.

The main issue really is that I think it's harder to read, as it's less clear what is being used where. The explicitness of the C-style makes it easier to see what goes where.

[jmcdiesel]

Thats kinda the point... with the vast array of languages out there, that are performant and powerful and very well established, why should anyone suffer through the learning curve? what value does the language offer to make that worth the effort?

[eastWestMath]

Well, evaluation in these languages is more transparent. The syntax is basically the lambda calculus, so once you've actually learned the language it makes a huge difference. I'd try reading up on "referential transparency".