> Nimrod's syntax is quite similar to scala

What are you talking about!? Have you even looked at either?

Nimrod:

    for i in 1..100:
        if i mod 15 == 0:
            echo("FizzBuzz")
        elif i mod 3 == 0:
            echo("Fizz")
        elif i mod 5 == 0:
            echo("Buzz")
        else:
            echo(i)

Scala:

    for (x <- 1 to 100) println(
        (x % 3, x % 5) match {
            case (0, 0) => "FizzBuzz"
            case (0, _) => "Fizz"
            case (_, 0) => "Buzz"
            case _      => x
        })

In nimrod you'll notice a lot less parens, curly braces, and '=>'.

> fast Haskell and easy/safe Haskell tend not to overlap as much as one would like

Not even remotely true. Where did you even get that idea?

It really depends on what part of Nimrod and Scala you look at. The similarities are perhaps more apparent when looking at the function declaration syntax, generics and/or the variable declaration syntax.

"fast Haskell and easy/safe Haskell tend not to overlap"

I'm sorry, but the only people I've heard say this are those who are slightly open-minded about Haskell but truly believe it usually can't be remotely as efficient as imperative alternatives. None of the people I've heard make these statements have had even a few months experience writing Haskell.

If you can qualify this, I'd be pretty interested. Or if you've had an experience with Haskell that led you to believe this, I'd like to see if there is another solution.

I'm very interested in these limitations people always talk about with Haskell, but none of them have held up so far. I've been evaluating Haskell for a while and am very interested in testing any limitations you've faced.