* Andrew Coppin
I think the accusation is more that Haskell tries to be cryptic and arcane *on purpose*, just to confuse people.
Sure, there are many concepts in Haskell which just aren't found anywhere else. But monads? Catamorphisms? Coroutines? Couldn't we think up some less intimidating terminology?
The problem is that "less intimidating" terminology generally seems to mean inaccurate or misleading terminology. They aren't concepts that aren't found anywhere else, they're concepts that *are* found elsewhere (category theory, among other places), that's why they have those names. (Also, "coroutines"? Seriously? That's hardly an obscure term in programming circles.)
{-# LANGUAGE ExistentialQuantification #-}
Hmm, now if this was Perl or something, that would be HiddenTypeVariables or something. Much less fearsom-sounding.
Also much less informative, and less accurate. The fact that Haskell embraces its mathematical basis instead of trying to completely obfuscate it away is not a bad thing, in my opinion.
But then, I guess that's what you get for a lanuage designed by a committee of university professors. ;-)
At any rate, if we're to have a logo, let's not have one which actively *promotes* the notion that Haskell is complex and difficult and that only theoretical physicists need apply...
I think you're reading way too much into a logo. -- mithrandi, i Ainil en-Balandor, a faer Ambar