> Even worse than the problem of uncommon concepts as monads
Just go ahead and learn the typeclass hierarchy and such-- it really is quite a useful higher level of abstraction in whatever language you choose. And it definitely will enter the mainstream (even more than is already has [Swift, Scala & C# all have monadic constructs]).
> Haskell's memory footprint is extremely hard to reason about.
And you'd probably want to also throw runtime in there as well.
I think this is relative-- it's not "extremely hard" for everyone. Also, many structured programmers found object orientation "extremely hard" but somehow the industry managed to progress through that era.
Just go ahead and learn the typeclass hierarchy and such-- it really is quite a useful higher level of abstraction in whatever language you choose. And it definitely will enter the mainstream (even more than is already has [Swift, Scala & C# all have monadic constructs]).
> Haskell's memory footprint is extremely hard to reason about.
And you'd probably want to also throw runtime in there as well.
I think this is relative-- it's not "extremely hard" for everyone. Also, many structured programmers found object orientation "extremely hard" but somehow the industry managed to progress through that era.