Python is not fundamentally any easier to use or to learn than something like Haskell or Clojure or Racket or Scheme (I'd argue the contrary) though. It's only true in practice out of sociohistorical accident, because your colleagues can show you how to use it to do things, because their colleagues once showed them.
This is just an absurd statement, of course Python is easier to learn than either of those languages.
I've taught Haskell at an university and almost none of the students ever found the model of computation natural. I think we humans simply find following a series of steps easier than reasoning in an abstract mathematical sense.
That being said, I absolutely see the value of the latter, and consider it a good thing that functional concepts are gaining popularity in imperative languages.
Would it be possible to give a small example of Haskell versus Python that shows why Python's model of computation is different to and easier than Haskell's?
I suppose I was looking for a more typical programming example than a cooking recipe, but even so I don't see why Haskell would have a problem there. I wouldn't claim it would be clearer but I still don't see why it would be worse.
cook meat sauce = do
pan <- getPan
addTo pan meat
cookFor pan 10
addTo pan sauce
cookFor pan 3
food <- contents pan
pure food
> I think we humans simply find following a series of steps easier than reasoning in an abstract mathematical sense.
It is not at all obvious that this is truly the case. If it was the case, why didn't humans intuitively develop mathematics from a computational foundation? It took centuries before we made the leap from mathematical abstractions to Turing machines, and the two are (in some great general sense) isomorphic.
