Functional Language: Gut feelings

In my last post, I written about my email to Barbara Liskov and raised some issues about Functional language.
I let out my feeling that something is not "right". That gut feeling.
Today, I came across Ted Neward's blog post on his 2010 prediction.
One of  his 2010 crystall ball point  seems to resonate with what I was trying to express then.

Quote:

"... functional languages will start to see a backlash. I hate to say it, but "getting" the functional mindset is hard, and there's precious few resources that are making it easy for mainstream (read: O-O) developers make that adjustment, far fewer than there was during the procedural-to-object shift. If the functional community doesn't want to become mainstream, then mainstream developers will find ways to take functional's most compelling gateway use-case (parallel/concurrent programming) and find a way to "git 'er done" in the traditional O-O approach, probably through software transactional memory, and functional languages like Haskell and Erlang will be relegated to the "What Might Have Been" of computer science history. Not sure what I mean? Try this: walk into a functional language forum, and ask what a monad is. Nobody yet has been able to produce an answer that doesn't involve math theory, or that does involve a practical domain-object-based example. In fact, nobody has really said why (or if) monads are even still useful. Or catamorphisms. Or any of the other dime-store words that the functional community likes to toss around."

I would hate to see Functional Language assuming the status of  Brahminian dialect, like Latin.
But again, who is to say folks are not motivated to learn and master Latin?

Veni. Vedi. Vici.