[creata]

If you don't mind, what is it about the syntax of Dhall that you find hard?

In my experience, Haskell's syntax is much simpler than the syntax of any of the popular languages. The "hard" parts of Haskell come with all the abstractions people make (esp. how it encodes side effects), the laziness, and the language extensions. Dhall has none of those.

[throwaway894345]

It seems to be a very polarizing topic. People who like Haskell's syntax find it very readable, others don't. In my estimation, there are a lot more in the "others" category than in the Haskell category. Whether my target audience has trouble with Haskell syntax because of some inherent property of the syntax or merely because their background isn't in Haskell doesn't ultimately matter--the requirement is that my users can quickly be productive (minimal learning curve, etc).

To be very explicit, I'm dodging the question because it's ultimately subjective and people come out of the woodwork with the same predictable talking points ("syntax doesn't matter", "but it's VERY readable! look how few characters!") and I don't have the energy this morning.

[creata]

> it's ultimately subjective... and I don't have the energy this morning.

Fair enough, but I've never seen anyone make either of the talking points that you claim are common, and they would be very silly things to say.

[iovrthoughtthis]

Did you just ask for someones opinions on the syntax just so you could call them silly?

[creata]

I think you misread, but maybe I should've worded it more clearly: the silly people are those hypothetical people who say that "syntax doesn't matter" and "fewer characters means better syntax".

[throwaway894345]

> I've never seen anyone make either of the talking points that you claim are common

Count yourself lucky

> they would be very silly things to say

I tend to agree