Functional programming is dead

Are Functional Languages ​​Dead?

Functional languages ​​are not dead, especially not in the scientific journal articles either. It would only have been nice if the researchers (e.g.) stayed with Haskell (for good reasons) and didn't differentiate again.
(how was that back then with the Lisp dialects?)

Haskell himself is, I would say, very Linux-like, and above all brings the weak characteristics of Linux with him: exotic status, specialization, annoying dependencies with libraries and interfaces, in many ways opaque and unreliable (which GUI bibs do we use today? Gui ? What's this?). Much seems to be more proof of concept characteristic than anything else. Since it comes from academic institutions, Unix / Linux is the basic system. But Linux is inherently a C system, and ...
(Windows integration is so-so, and if you have less than 1 GB free, the ghc (i) does not even install itself - how about a slimmer version?)
(but: http://alenribic.com/posts/2012-08-06-running-haskell-on-raspberry-pi.html)
In addition, Haskell's didactics are usually not really good.
That makes getting started and rethinking difficult. And that is why many easy problems, the solution of which - with imperative training - one can quickly see in mind, seem difficult.
(but many had the imperative programming in their mother's milk, from this point of view such a comparison is always a bit unfair - conversely, I think, try out over study and a lot also depends on the available libraries and familiarity with the possibilities of Haskell (also the programming possibilities of c ++ seem to me not yet fully researched / developed or practiced - especially not with newer functional achievements / prospects)

Opaque, half-understood and strange, questionable bib, that doesn't seem really encouraging. Is Haskell actually functional or rather ideal?

And: there used to be real Lisp machines, i.e. boxes that were hardware-optimized for Lisp (nothing marginal). But Lisp was AI, and AI was soon dead (because it fell short - I also find DATA much more sympathetic than Spock) and so did the Lisp boxes (no more money). IF processors were now hardware optimized for Haskell, which would not be unreasonable ...

So / what actually happens is that, due to the poor starting position of most functional programming languages, starting from a familiar basis (e.g. OOP) (which the farmer does not know ...) functional programming or elements from it owns. That is almost logical.

And what is shown in the Haskell (sub-forum?)
Problems with the simplest basics (the very first few minutes of learning) i.e. (div, mod, / \) (well, at least) (what does that tell us?)
Evidence of Haskell's practicality questionable. (There is even a YouTube video for this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSmkqocn0oQ
Prejudices (this is very similar to the assembly part).

The AHA effect that you have when you have dealt a little more with Haskell (that is, once you have understood the basic course well and then something beyond that, data types and interfaces, a few funny little self-written functions and programs, etc.) is quite similar to what you have when you have a problem that seems very fiddly in direct hardware programming. You are happy about the next (next best) standard language: