C K Kashyap
c) Where's my inheritance?
I was of the impression that OO has crawled our way, for instance frowing upon (implementation) inheritance and mutable data structures. Maybe you could find appropriate references? Lots of language development these days seems to be looking to functional languages for inspiration.
e) Static types - in this day and age - come on - productivity in X is so much more - and that's because they got rid of type mess.
Don't mention static types until later - show code without annotations. Then later explain that things are statically typed even without annotations, and that static types helps correctness, e.g. when refactoring code, or building complex compositions of higher order functions. Could you reasonalby do arrows or monads etc. in a dynamically typed language? Moreover, I don't think STM is going to work without types separating TVars from other data, and this shows our types are more powerful than your grandfather's C-style type systems.
g) Oh FP, as in Lisp, oh, that's AI stuff right ... we don't really do AI.
...and Java, that's imperative...like Fortran, isn't it? Nah, we don't calculate artillery tables, so... Btw, maybe there could be a wiki section or something with stuff like this - I think it would be useful to collect introductory resources for settings like this - I know I'm often being asked about this Haskell stuff from colleagues and friends. -k -- If I haven't seen further, it is by standing in the footprints of giants