| > All the magic will make them feel confused and powerless when they do anything outside of the blessed path. Maybe, but what are the chances they chalk it up to a normal and acceptable learning path? > They can't extrapolate that forM_ works for any monad in the future. I think it's important people know that, but how much does it matter for IHP's intended audience? > Agreed, I wish we all used |> instead of &, but that operator is called & in Haskell. You're crippling your users' ability to read other code-bases in the future I think this is an important point, but I'm not sure how much it would matter for most. > And that same code would be plenty readable with &, don't you agree? Most would assume & means something with boolean and I bet. I find & readable, but even Haskellers on my team didn't really seem to take to it. > There's so much more to "building" than the first month of development! People don't really value the long term but default I've found. Then once they have committed to something to a degree, they don't change from it. If IHP makes it easy enough to get to the point of feeling like one should keep using it rather than starting over... Maybe the extra learning challenge will feel "normal", worth it, and otherwise motivated. > Haskell is an order of magnitude more productive for me than other languages (ruby), because of its differences. I can relate to this, but coming from Python. Others who aren't sold on Haskell by it's usually toured virtues are probably likely to be sold by getting someone spun up to hack away on more quickly. I find making a lot of these arguments kind of funny since I typically find myself arguing from your position :) |