For folks looking to learn more about GHC's extensions, Ollie Charles is currently doing a great "24 Days of GHC Extensions" series. https://ocharles.org.uk/blog/pages/2014-12-01-24-days-of-ghc...

> I find this odd. To me, it seems like the less-used features are getting the most mention and showing up at the top of the list.

> For example, you use Functor and Foldable and Monad (for IO) all the time in real-world production code.

From the article:

> I put out a call for data and comments about topics that Haskell people felt were under represented.

Functor and Monad are hardly underrepresented.

The exact wording was, "What <features> do you feel are under represented or often misunderstood?"

I agree that Functor and Monad are hardly candidates to dominate that survey, the burrito notwithstanding.

Maybe I misunderstood the topic as the poll itself isn't linked on the blog, but I got the idea that this is a poll on "what topics would you most like to learn more about?" and I would guess that most Haskell programmers are very comfortable with Functor, Foldable and Monad already.

For context, this is the poll being referenced: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1DiW2iS1hLclldPY2EJNpXGswirF...

And the poll results are in: haskell, a nice idea, but basically ignored in the real, non-academic world. Still, keep up the research, that's the spirit!

The article lists the following domains:

1. Web Development

2. Compiler Design

3. Pure Mathematics or CS Theory

4. Data Analysis

5. Numerical Computing

6. Education

7. Financial Modeling

I'd say every item except for (3) belongs in the real, non-academic world.

One thing I would like the article to say, but it didn't: Which fraction of respondents were in each domain.

How do you come to that conclusion?