[EvilTerran]

Actually, it says to me "functional languages are unfamiliar, therefore they're bad". Particularly the crux of the essay:

Any halfway decent programmer can quickly glean the general intent of most imperative code — even in a language he or she has never seen. While you can certainly figure out what functional routines do by looking at them, it may not be possible in a glance. Unlike imperative code, functional code doesn’t map to simple language constructs. Rather, it maps to mathematical constructs.

What's actually the case is: any decent imperative programmer can quickly glean the general intent of most imperative code; equally, any decent functional programmer can quickly glean the general intent of most functional code. Furthermore, anyone with a decent grounding in merely algebra can quickly glean the general intent of well-written functional code. The same cannot be said of imperative code.

As for ugly syntax... well, I don't know Erlang, but that Haskell is incredibly badly mangled. Haskell can be beautiful -- substantially more so than most languages, I'd say. The same code, reformatted:

  -- file: ch05/Prettify.hs
  pretty width x = best 0 [x] where
      best col [] = ""
      best col (d:ds) = case d of
          Empty        -> best col ds
          Char c       -> c : best (col + 1) ds
          Text s       -> s ++ best (col + length s) ds
          Line         -> '\n' : best 0 ds
          a `Concat` b -> best col (a:b:ds)
          a `Union`  b -> nicest col (best col (a:ds)) (best col (b:ds))

      nicest col a b | (width - least) `fits` a = a
                     | otherwise                = b
          where least = min width col

There. Lovely.