[harry8]

Just to address the premise with the data in the link you provide. Click your link, remove anything that is a compiler, a linter, some other parser of programming languages, a library for use when programming haskell or a programming framework and that list gets very, very dramatically shorter.

I don't think that's entirely fair fwiw, it's github ordered by stars, that will turn up things used by programmers for programming in any language. But either way I don't find the refutation convincing.

I'd love it if the premise was no longer fair. That the data really does not support it. I want monad tutorials, there are thousands. That is no exaggeration. I want Haskell applications useful for something that isn't programming a computer - really not much.

I was kind of hoping you'd say something about the parsing problem domain and why that /seems/ to work particularly well with haskell but other domains not quite so much, at least yet, and whether that can be changed or is simply the nature of statically typed, pure functional programming languages (I really hope not).

It's not "successful" let alone "extremely successful" programs so much as "existant" that is the bar that needs clearing first.

Pandoc is great. Haskell works well for those of you hacking on it. I've used it, liked it and thank you for it! It isn't necessary to have an opinion on the topic at all, of course.