Is Haskell really the language of geniuses and academia?

[amarao]

The key failure of Haskell to appeal to masses is in the Second Hard Problem. Haskell has failed it miserably. (SHP — naming things).

Why? Because no one knew WTF is monads. If you call this fancy set of structures and functions a 'thread' every one can get overall feeling what to expect. It starts, it twists, it ends. We can wave threads into something big.

If 'this thing' is called a table, we can imagine something with fields to fill, rectangular in shape.

What kind of casual properties give us Monad? What to expect from it? Well…

— It's something obscure (check)
— I don't know what it is in real life (check)
— I feel I don't need it (check)
— It provides a nice function composition (no check — how can I guess this by name?)
— It allows to wrap values (no check)

As you can see intuitive description of Monad is 'something obscure and useless'. How can language thrive when it build around such metaphor?

[xfaetas]

For me the main issue with learning Haskell is the lack of real-world examples available. The tutorials are either something like “let f x = x + 5” or are explaining in-depth about the more obscure concepts like transformers, again without showcasing their practical real-world applications.

[cblp]

Try
1. www.fpcomplete.com/blog
2. book.realworldhaskell.org
3. talks from any FP conference

[ikle]

...and yet type output works well.

Долго думал, что же такое «type output», и понял только переведя на русский и прочитав снова: всё таки, «type inference».

P.S. Полное понимание данного комментария требует знания русского, не зависимо от, того, на каком языке он написан, а основной посыл поймут все.