I'm not sure the fact that kids can "learn" language X proves much, because generally we're teaching kids language X so they can take some kid-friendly subset of the language and do kid projects in it. This is great on its own, but showing that kids can learn Scala or Haskell doesn't necessarily mean that they're going to be able to program in it.
Here's a group using Haskell: http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/haskell-for-kids-wee... Are they choking and dying because Haskell is just too magically difficult for children to learn? Goodness, no. On the other hand, does this prove that Haskell is never confusing when you're three layers deep in monad transformers trying to use a parsing library and you get a twenty-line error message about a failure to unify types with type signatures bigger than Twitter will let you post full of "a" and "t1" and "t2" and "t3"s?
I mean, let's be honest, that just doesn't happen when you're using Python or Perl. (It can in Java, but still a lot of times it's just verbose, vs. Haskell's actual complexity.)
Here's a group using Haskell: http://cdsmith.wordpress.com/2011/09/03/haskell-for-kids-wee... Are they choking and dying because Haskell is just too magically difficult for children to learn? Goodness, no. On the other hand, does this prove that Haskell is never confusing when you're three layers deep in monad transformers trying to use a parsing library and you get a twenty-line error message about a failure to unify types with type signatures bigger than Twitter will let you post full of "a" and "t1" and "t2" and "t3"s?
I mean, let's be honest, that just doesn't happen when you're using Python or Perl. (It can in Java, but still a lot of times it's just verbose, vs. Haskell's actual complexity.)