I think some folks are misreading your comments a bit as an indictment of the language. I read it as saying, "Haskell doesn't have syntax that's similar to any language I know and that means I have to learn something I don't know, which takes time, and I don't have a lot of time."
Personally, I'm with you. I've used other functional languages (F#, clojure, erlang), I'd say I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the ideas Haskell uses (comprehensions, partial application, anonymous functions, pure functions, pattern matching) and I actually really want to learn Haskell, but I have a hard time intuiting the meaning of a lot of Haskell syntax just based on other syntax that I know.
I also realize that the syntax probably fits the language very well, which makes sense, and that it's a good thing. I wouldn't want it to compromise it's purity for familiarity. Just makes it more work to learn.
I'm with you, but you do get used to it. Basically if you just get your feet wet writing a few semi-significant programs in Haskell (e.g. a parser, which is a very common and pleasant task in Haskell), then you'll get familiar with it. The biggest hurdle for me came from being able to understand do-syntax (which is a bunch of applications of monadic bind).
Hah! yes. Maybe I should have put it the way you did.
My view of Haskell is the same as a non-Lispers view of Lisp. Cry about too much parens and it making things difficult to understand. Doesn't mean the language needs to be changed. I am all in for learning Haskell although most introductions to haskell are really time consuming and dense, so I never just did it. Which is where I was really glad that this tutorial was put up.
Hating any language which actually does serve its purpose is pretty stupid. If anyone actually has some issues understanding a sightly different but very well respected language, then the fault is mostly with that person and not the language.
I think lisp is a really good example for how I feel with haskell, and one I'm more familiar with.
When I first started learning lisp, the syntax was foreign, and while lisp syntax is arguably really really simple, composition with that syntax is a little weird if you're not used to it. Yet, at the same time, the syntax is a fundamental part of the language, especially with respect to homoiconicity, simplicity and macros. It was a time-sink to get used to it, but totally worth it.
Personally, I'm with you. I've used other functional languages (F#, clojure, erlang), I'd say I'm pretty familiar with a lot of the ideas Haskell uses (comprehensions, partial application, anonymous functions, pure functions, pattern matching) and I actually really want to learn Haskell, but I have a hard time intuiting the meaning of a lot of Haskell syntax just based on other syntax that I know.
I also realize that the syntax probably fits the language very well, which makes sense, and that it's a good thing. I wouldn't want it to compromise it's purity for familiarity. Just makes it more work to learn.