Haskell is very productive

Is Haskell suitable for productive use or is it just a challenge for the programmer?

knivil wrote:

I know programming languages ​​with theoretically at least as much as with Haskell well-founded, powerful and everyday abstractions whose syntax fits on half a leaflet.

As if that's a measure, e.g. Brainfuck.

Bf has terse syntax, but I'm talking about terse syntax With everyday (!) abstractions.

knivil wrote:

No, it's not a fact, just your opinion.

No, it's not just subjective opinion.

if I am to program an application that simulates a partial aspect of the real world (e.g. word processing - simulation of typewriter, piece of paper, pen, etc.):

I look around in the real world and what do I see? Objects. Lots of objects. All with internal states - many of them time-dependent - and external properties.

where do I see stateless functions in the real world? And why are functions a more suitable abstraction than objects for modeling the real world?

For many practical applications, modeling using objects that communicate with one another using messages is more natural than using functions. We just live in an object world.

I am the last one to learn the theoretical merits and the mathematical foundation of Funk.Prog. wants to question, and I have no doubt that freedom from side effects a la Haskell is gaining importance in the age of parallelism.

However, I question that the function in the mathematical sense is basically the correct abstraction for modeling real-world problems.

knivil wrote:

Because it is a general phenomenon and not specific to Haskell.

when this huge productivity gain general A phenomenon when using functional languages ​​is, why are there no such numbers for Haskell?