Haskell doesn't have a reputation of bad pedagogy per se. My only point was what anyone's reaction should be when their personal impression is "bad pedagogy", in any area of software. It means that something is missing.
The idea that I'm "obviously referring to Haskell" and attacking me for it is beneath a response.
By the way this thread is an excellent example of why if I did have clear arguments for limitations baked into technology xyz, I certainly wouldn't share them: leaving learners in the difficult position of being presented difficul material/approaches, without a context, by those who understand it but keep mum about any limitations or difficulties.
(An example would be the syntax for standard library container operations in C++ (stl things), like with vectors. Nobody is going to explain that this syntax is so much uglier than higher-level vector/array syntax due to history, because the minute they did it would become obvious that there should be a CoffeeScript-like intermediate syntax parser that turns easy syntax into C++. Instead, it's presented without any such context, and nobody fixed the fact that this is harder to learn, harder to parse or debug, and more error-prone, than higher-level interpreted languages. It's just silently accepted without reference to this being a historical design trade-off.
I'm not objecting to it, but if something seems to be described circuitously or not being taught very well, then you're probably not being told the whole story.
Note that just as your original comment was murky and seemingly accusatory, so was my original reply to you—because I was parodying you.
You talked about unspecified things fundamentally and secretly sucking... so I said that you might be fundamentally and secretly trolling... who knows if any of these claims are true? They're both murky, vague, and somewhat paranoid.
The more straightforward argument you're producing now seems interesting, and I agree to some extent. I'll happily admit that Haskell—just like every single language—has historical warts and problems. Some of them are being addressed by the community, with some of them the community is stuck in arguing, etc.
C++ has always been firmly committed to backwards compatibility, which is one reason it is such a successful industrial language. Haskell has some of that too, and incompatible changes made to the core language are rare and always met with suspicion.
However, I don't think the Haskell community is especially dogmatic about the perfection of their own language. If anything, people are constantly discussing ways to make it better.
> The idea that I'm "obviously referring to Haskell" and attacking me for it is beneath a response.
You were replying directly to a post that claimed "the haskell community is, on the whole, truly awful at pedagogy" so it's easy to see how mbrock mistakenly concluded that, when you said "in some fundamental, underlying way, it sucks", you were referring to Haskell (when in fact you meant something entirely different).
The idea that I'm "obviously referring to Haskell" and attacking me for it is beneath a response.
By the way this thread is an excellent example of why if I did have clear arguments for limitations baked into technology xyz, I certainly wouldn't share them: leaving learners in the difficult position of being presented difficul material/approaches, without a context, by those who understand it but keep mum about any limitations or difficulties.
(An example would be the syntax for standard library container operations in C++ (stl things), like with vectors. Nobody is going to explain that this syntax is so much uglier than higher-level vector/array syntax due to history, because the minute they did it would become obvious that there should be a CoffeeScript-like intermediate syntax parser that turns easy syntax into C++. Instead, it's presented without any such context, and nobody fixed the fact that this is harder to learn, harder to parse or debug, and more error-prone, than higher-level interpreted languages. It's just silently accepted without reference to this being a historical design trade-off.
I'm not objecting to it, but if something seems to be described circuitously or not being taught very well, then you're probably not being told the whole story.
There is a good and specific rason why.)