@Sasha @bram I do not

@LottieVixen @bram It's very simple. It's a formal language (so just a toy to build «terms», with no particular «meaning» until you decide to assign one to them) that has expressions of three forms :

«variables» (give yourself a set of acceptable names for variables, just writing the name of a variable is a statement in itself)

«lambda abstractions» λx -> t
where x is chosen in your variables set and t must be a term itself and so recursively can be a variable, or a lambda, or an

«application» a term that you write «f t» where f and t are both terms (recursively again, f and t can be variables, lambdas or applications)

@Sasha @LottieVixen having played quite a lot with haskell and having explored a lot of other programming languages I still hold my position.

Yes, the basis part of the language are, indeed quite simple, but everything else makes it ridiculously complicated: all the abstractions you need to handle (it's way more than in any other language), the ecosystem, cabal, stack, etc...

It's especially obvious compared to a language like elm that was design to be accessible :/

@bram @LottieVixen I hate everything that looks like a language-specific package manager and I think that people who created them played a cruel trick to the community so I don't know much about cabal nor stack.

About the abstractions in the language, yeah there are plenty of useful ones, and it's really nice to be writing a detail in a function, hating how it's gonna be complex due to the structure underneath before you realise that this very structure has exactly the good property that allows you to use a pretty operator to simplify everything and have the existing proofs do all the work for you.