Haskell isn't designed for "average people" or "most people" and why should it be?
Real human beings use Haskell every day and love it.
Real human beings are capable of learning about teh scary maths and abstract theories.
You studied philosophy? Are you aware that most people don't understand anything about philosophical theories other than The Secret? Have you thought about how maybe those theories can change people's lives even though they're not aimed at a lowest common denominator? E.g. by being influential in the long run, and also by being intellectually stimulating to people who do bother to learn about it?
Rails-style success is not the goal for Haskell. It is an explicit anti-goal: the motto is "avoid success at all costs."
Terse and rude counterpoint to your thesis: Average people are lazy idiots and designing your language to appeal to them will result in a very popular incoherent mess, like Java and Ruby, and Dijkstra will make pointed remarks at you from his grave.
Real human beings use Haskell every day and love it.
Real human beings are capable of learning about teh scary maths and abstract theories.
You studied philosophy? Are you aware that most people don't understand anything about philosophical theories other than The Secret? Have you thought about how maybe those theories can change people's lives even though they're not aimed at a lowest common denominator? E.g. by being influential in the long run, and also by being intellectually stimulating to people who do bother to learn about it?
Rails-style success is not the goal for Haskell. It is an explicit anti-goal: the motto is "avoid success at all costs."
Terse and rude counterpoint to your thesis: Average people are lazy idiots and designing your language to appeal to them will result in a very popular incoherent mess, like Java and Ruby, and Dijkstra will make pointed remarks at you from his grave.
http://www.paulgraham.com/avg.html