>>37
Haven't you learned anything? Syntactic sugar is good. Say that a couple of times. Or would you rather index your C array with *(base + index)? Verbose syntax, as we've seen with Javur, is the very enemy of refactoring. And you aren't going to chisel your code onto slabs of marble the first time around. "The program is complete, now it only needs to be compiled."

Non-PITA partial application is the very reason that you can define things such as the following:
sum = foldr (+) 0
It follows, then, that
concat = foldr (++) []
Do that in LISP and choke on your tens of lambda expressions and lack of static typing a couple of years on when something unexpected comes along.

... also there's functions like 'flip', which is effectively (\f a b -> f b a). Though you are correct in that more useful orderings of parameters do come along. IMO that just goes to show that functional programming doesn't let you skip careful design either.

>>39
No you haven't. Monadic I/O maybe. That's not exactly hard, once you come to terms with tail recursion :-)

For the real ultimate power, read a good monad tutorial (Monads for the working haskell programmer, I think it's called), take two aspirin and prepare for a great big mindfuck. And another when you look up what a monad is in category theory (optional).