I'm really looking forward to the day when all these new-to-Elm people start hitting the complexity ceiling of their language and convince the maintainers to add just a little more power. Example: Haskell's typeclasses have a high power-to-weight ratio, and Elm has to work around their absence (e.g., writing a fresh map function for each data type). Once there's a critical mass of frontend types who understand the power of FP, convincing people to try FP won't be the difficult step any more, and Elm won't need to try so hard to be un-intimidating.

Can't for the life of me figure out why people equate FP with the abomination that Haskell is.

Erlang is FP. Javascript is FP. Ocaml is FP.

Type classes, or anything else that has "types" in them such as dependent, or liquid, are not FP, they are types. Types that found their way into a couple of FP languages.

What makes you say Haskell is an abomination?

Basically every obscure overly complicated concept that Haskell throws at you (all the while pretending to be the only true FP language out there) can be explained in 5 to 10 lines of Javascript: https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon

Compare and contrast.

- Monad explained in Javascript: https://github.com/hemanth/functional-programming-jargon#mon...

- Timeline (sic!) of monad tutorials for Haskell: https://wiki.haskell.org/Monad_tutorials_timeline

The worst crime against humanity though is Haskell crap seeping into other languages (such as ramda, for instance: http://ramdajs.com)