1 - Haskell folks do not know what a programming language is. Indead thay know – as a scientist knows – what a "description" of a "concept" is. And surely they are masters in solving this sort of "concept-modeling" problems. Also there are many proofs for their effors in solving extra-complex-concept-structuring problems. Look at the clean way that is provided in Haskell world for writing theorem provers. So there are many proofs for – for the elegance, power, speed, [your super-duper adverb here] – the "POWER" of Haskell. But the point is overall result of their approach in imagining what Haskell is; made it useless. I am not a nag-nag mumbler, but let be real. Nothing great is going to happen for Haskell in less than (almost) 10 years. And this kind of things will be base of many many other good ideas, ofcourse with good implementation of those ideas – a superb idea without an implementation is just a nothing. But this bases will remain just a "base" that can not move in any direction; and must get branched – i.e. by dialects of their approaches – but can not evolve. They forgot the main point of any good thing : "accessiblity". If something is hard and people says it is such a pain in neck, then be sure it is so. If 4 of 10 people thinks a command line compiler needs a default text-edirot too then be sure other 6 needs it too. If there is a barier in accessing to your product – a barier as little as fail to talk with a rabbit like alice – then your baby product is crying to get your attention. Haskell – tools and concepts are not – is not "accessible" enough to be used for anything. Haskell is too lazy to come out with anything or anybody.

2 – F# is not a good idea! It is a good idea with a good implementation! And that's the point! It has integration with Visual Studio and some good tools with it! It proves it's ability to seamlessly integrate with .NET technologies; like upcoming linq thing. A multi-paradeigm space that is beautiful, usefull and comfortable. There is nothing about it too scary to be abandoned! It is very accesible : in usage and in it's concepts. F# is useful! That's my great discovery! But I think F# is getting lazy … That's bad. Do you know what does it mean "that's bad"? Surely you know. Because I am sure you agree with me on this point now : F# is useful! It means it can be used to do the things that need to be done. Why microsoft is going a wrong way about F#? The next big language that will bust software developing is F#. Not C# 3.0! Is there anyone there that learns a bit from Ruby on Rails? (Ofcourse Ruby is love for me and I want a Ruby engine on top of F# for scripting my applications too! But that's another story! ;) ) Just announce F# an official supported product. Microsoft can do that. Microsoft announced many useless and badly developed products officially! Why not to put some good one on the rail?

3 – Look at what erlang provides for developing concurrent, fault-tolerate systems. We can have it in F#. There are some tries out there i.e. ErlyThread (in C#). Or some folks are putting efforts on another F#! It is named C$ (Ofcourse in my opinion it is not as beautiful as F#!). I did not actually used it. But the front page says so. There can be vary usefull automation pakages for .NET development that are developed in F#; in a RoR taste. F# can put serious good changes and "AHA!"s in development cycle … I am tired by now it is 1:03 AM and I had a hard day today. Now I need a realy nice dream tonight, about tomorrow, which F# is not going to give it to me. I thing F# is getting lazy!