Yes, hence the "at least a few years ago". But perhaps I'm misremembering and confusing it with applicative functors, it has been a few years.

> I guess they went with a non-breaking feature introduction.

Sure, but functors aren't exactly novel, are they? Although it has contributed a lot to programming language design in general, Haskell didn't exactly invent the concept of a generic "map". So why wasn't it there in the first place, and why was it - despite its obvious prominence - not deemed important enough for a (what seems to be tiny) breaking change?

> Anyway, it could be worse. You could be working in a language that can't even express the functor/map interface.

Are those still around? I thought even Go eventually started supporting generics?

They were my concerns when learning Haskell - and I was following graduate-level courses at a university which contributes rather heavily to the Haskell ecosystem. They might not apply to you, but that doesn't mean they aren't real.

My limit was seeing a HTTP server being praised over and over again for it's wonderful type-safe API, trying to use it, and a few weeks in discovering that a very basic HTTP feature was considered an "open research question" and "would probably require a full redesign". Having poor compile time and consuming a crazy amount of memory was indeed also quite an annoyance. Having an entire ecosystem seemingly more concerned about writing theses about type theory than with building usable libraries? That was a dealbreaker.

Haskell is a great tool for programming language research, and I can't wait to see what kind of crazy things they'll end up doing with dependent typing. Unfortunately in my experience this also seems to make it into a rather poor choice for actual programming in a non-research environment.

I don't hate or dislike Haskell. If anything, I'm disappointed in it. I really want to love it and use it for everything, but it's just... not there yet.