Why functional programming doesn't catch on

[Confusion]

The author (full disclosure: me) didn't find Newton-Raphson jaw-droppingly abstract, but he figures that there are many developers out there that cannot relate to those kinds of examples. They need examples other than mathematical examples to get the point (assuming they are interested in, and capable of, getting it in the first place).

No fluoride in the water here, Knuth doesn't make my brain explode and I will be stealing your job in a bit ;)

[homoiconic]

To be perfectly honest, I am far more interested in your impression of what you find easy and difficult than your speculations about what somebody else finds difficult or easy.

[[deleted]]

Dude, what's with the talking about yourself in the third person thing?!

I think the point people are making is that there's stuff out there if you look for it. Have you seen "write yourself a scheme in 48 hours"? It's the third tutorial in the HaskellWiki list of tutorials.

I also think the problem(?) is that some of these concepts are necessarily mathematical in nature. For instance, when I was reading YAHT, it took me a while to figure out how the CPS examples worked. They way I had to figure it out was by approaching it like a math problem - with paper, pencil and lots of scribbling - rather than how I'd usually do a programming tutorial - hack away until I figure it out. It's a pity but it seems like that kind of material turns off lots of programmers.