<i>I like Haskell but I see no future in terms of widespread adoption for it.</i><p>The aim isn&#x27;t necessarily widespread adoption, so much as the ability for people who know it to use professionally. It&#x27;s way past merely &quot;production ready&quot;, but reputation is a lagging indicator and so most programmers are stuck doing Java...<p>Since the goal is to avoid {success at all costs}, getting 25% market share is probably not possible. 1 percent would be a start.<p>The problem, economically speaking, is that Haskell and Clojure engineers are massively underpaid, when you consider that an average Haskeller would be Principal+ at any Java shop. That&#x27;s because the Java and C++ people can create bidding wars every year and spike their salaries, whereas using a better but more niche language makes that career strategy untenable.<p>Haskell&#x27;s laziness isn&#x27;t as much of an issue as people make it out to be. You can have strictness any time you need it, so it&#x27;s more akin to an opt-out model than laziness being forced upon the programmer. It is correct to observe that high-performance applications frequently have a lot of strictness annotations, and the argument can be made that high-performance Haskell (while it can be close to C in performance) isn&#x27;t &quot;idiomatic&quot;... although that claim is true of all high-level languages (even Java). High-performance Clojure ends up being full of &#x27;^&#x27; characters for type annotations, and high-performance Haskell ends up being full of &#x27;!&#x27; characters for strictness.