I've experienced some cases where I've been spoken to a bit sharply, and some where people have come across a bit impatient when I haven't "got" something they understand. The thing is that I don't process it as people coming across as a dick, so my subjective experience is that the community is helpful. As to the three examples [1] you picked out of Haskellers coming across as pricks, I honestly, truely, completely don't see anything in any of these comments beyond forthright assertions of opinion. Would you be able to maybe break down what you find objectionable?
[1] As disclosure: I currently work with dons, and I also know willtim.
If you don't understand what's offensive about condescendingly spewing falsehoods like "if it compiles, it works" or saying that you can't respect a CS department that uses Python for its introductory CS courses instead of Haskell (and thus doesn't expect its freshmen to know what a Kleisli category is), you've obviously drank too much of the Haskell Kool-Aid to maintain objectivity.
The if it compiles works thing... That's unfortunately overblown and hyperbolic, but in my experience of the Haskell community in London, it's usually uttered as a tongue in cheek joke. I'm not sure I'd characterize it as condescendingly spewing falsehoods.
However, let me tell you about my first experience building a little thing while learning Haskell: As a total newbie, I wanted to pull some timeseries from a database and plot them on a UI. It took me days of grabbing some time here and there, learning which DB library I should use and how the diagrams package worked. I finally got it to compile without any errors. As a python programmer this was a completely new way of programming for me, and I now fully expected the real work of making it run to begin. The VERY first time I ran it - up popped a timeseries visualization. Mind. Blown!
So as you state it, "if it compiles it works" might be a falsehood, but there's more than a grain of truth there.
As for your other comment. What Tim actually said was:
> An institution that teaches Python under the banner of computer science, certainly loses prestige in my opinion
He didn't say that he "can't respect" it, nor did he say that CS should exclusively be taught in Haskell. He said, that teaching it in python lowers its prestige (and later clarifies that he means that as a vehicle for teaching CS rather than programming).
As I mentioned, I'm a self taught programmer, beginning with python. Since then I've worked at hedge funds and investment banks in python and built a startup on Haskell. My opinion is built on my own direct experience, and I find it somewhat disrespectful that you dismiss it as "drinking the Haskell Kool-Aid".
"The VERY first time I ran it - up popped a timeseries visualization. Mind. Blown!"
Almost every programmer using almost every language has experiences like this. That hardly justifies making such expansive claims, claims that even a dependently-typed language would have difficulty justifying.
"Since then I've worked at hedge funds and investment banks in python and built a startup on Haskell. My opinion is built on my own direct experience, and I find it somewhat disrespectful that you dismiss it as "drinking the Haskell Kool-Aid"
I am not trying to be disrespectful to you, but I think you are being far to charitable in your interpretation of the conduct of your peers in the Haskell community.
In both cases, I think it speaks to something important, and is obviously not true in any strict sense.
"If you write or edit <language>, with some reasonable practices and trying to get to a solution, the kinds of mistakes you will usually make will be usually caught by the type system."
In my experience, this is marginally more true of Haskell than OCaml, of which it is notably more true than C, of which it is notably more true than Python. With the caveat that much traditional/common practice in C does not satisfy the "reasonable practices" criterion.
