I won't speak for anyone else, but I remember when recursion first "clicked". It was in a 400-level data structures and algorithms class. I had already done a fair amount of chess programming (which of course does a massive amount of recursion), but it still seemed a bit magical to me. When the professor pointed out that you simply have to assume that the recursive call will work, and then the whole recursive definition will, a light bulb went on. Of course, once I started learning haskell, such "aha!" moments quickly became a way of life. Things like map, foldr, and the lazy definition of fibs all made me stop and think for a while, and when I understood them, I was better for it. I had a sort of interesting moment like this last night. In hacking on some code, I wrote the following function: combine :: [Int] -> [Int] -> [[Int]] combine [] _ = [] combine (x:xs) ys = (take x ys) : (combine xs (drop x ys)) To me, this is recursion. Define your base case, take care of one part of the problem, and then call yourself recursively to take care of the rest. This is how I was taught recursion, and this is how I think about it. Now for the fun part. A much more experienced haskeller told me he preferred to write it like this: combine' :: [Int] -> [Int] -> [[Int]] combine' xs ys = snd $ mapAccumL aux ys xs where aux ys n = (b,a) where (a,b) = splitAt n ys Ack! Where'd the nice "base-case, take a chunk, recursively do the rest" pattern go? Suddenly, recursion isn't so simple when it's done using composition and higher-order functions which abstract recursive patterns. Like I said, I'm familiar with map, foldr, etc. But this is the first time it's dawned on me that I need to think in more general recursive patterns like this instead of simple, raw recursion. That map and foldr aren't JUST a nice way of doing things to a little list, but they are recursive operators, building blocks that I need to use as fluently as anything else. I suspect I'm not alone, though of course I could be wrong. But I would bet that a significant difference between newbies and more experienced Haskell programmers is the degree to which they can think in this composition/HOF way. Where the beginner wants to program using raw, simple recursion, the more experienced sees an opportunity to apply an abstraction. So, a couple of questions to ponder about this: Is this unique to Haskell, or could the same be said about any functional language? How can we teach this better to newbies? Most of what I see in the tutorials is "Higher order functions accept as parameters and/or return other functions. Here's some examples: <explanation of map>, <explanation of foldr>. Moving on, ..." But clearly, this is something important, and I think we can do a better job of teaching it. Suggestions?