FP is the best thing since sliced bread, don't get me wrong!
But the seemingly arising "Haskell religion" is at least as mislead as the OOP-religion that held mainstream in stranglehold for a long time.
Haskell's syntax isn't anything to imitate. It's hostile to IDE features, at least. Alone that should make it a no-go.
The next thing is that Haskell's features may make sense in the Haskell context, but they don't make any sense at all in almost any other language.
When you don't have strong types, no lazy evaluation by default, and it's not mandatory to use IO-wrappers, it makes not sense to mimic solutions that arose out necessities that are again results of constrains of Haskell's feature design. You need to do some things in Haskell the Haskell way because Haskell is the way it is. In a different language the chosen solutions are at best bonkers (even they may make sense for Haskell).
As always: It's a terrible idea to start doing something because "it's cool" and the "new hot shit", without actually understanding why exactly things are (or should be) done the way they are. The "Haskell religion" is by now imho already mostly only cargo cult… The more worrisome part is that it seems it attracts more and more acolytes. This will end up badly. It will likely kill the good ideas behind FP and only leave a hull of religious customs that the cult followers will insist on; exactly like it happened to OOP in the past.
That's my personal opinion, speaking as a big FP Scala fan.
But the seemingly arising "Haskell religion" is at least as mislead as the OOP-religion that held mainstream in stranglehold for a long time.
Haskell's syntax isn't anything to imitate. It's hostile to IDE features, at least. Alone that should make it a no-go.
The next thing is that Haskell's features may make sense in the Haskell context, but they don't make any sense at all in almost any other language.
When you don't have strong types, no lazy evaluation by default, and it's not mandatory to use IO-wrappers, it makes not sense to mimic solutions that arose out necessities that are again results of constrains of Haskell's feature design. You need to do some things in Haskell the Haskell way because Haskell is the way it is. In a different language the chosen solutions are at best bonkers (even they may make sense for Haskell).
As always: It's a terrible idea to start doing something because "it's cool" and the "new hot shit", without actually understanding why exactly things are (or should be) done the way they are. The "Haskell religion" is by now imho already mostly only cargo cult… The more worrisome part is that it seems it attracts more and more acolytes. This will end up badly. It will likely kill the good ideas behind FP and only leave a hull of religious customs that the cult followers will insist on; exactly like it happened to OOP in the past.
That's my personal opinion, speaking as a big FP Scala fan.