I feel pretty bad now and I am sorry that I am making you feel unwelcome and that I am perhaps draining your enthusiasm by starting this discussion, so feel free to ignore what I’m writing here. I will try to explain a bit more of my point of view.
The offending comment seems to be the comment by @ketzacoatl about “the wizards principle”. @Yakushima’s earlier reaction to it was also pretty unexpected for me.
First of all, the use of the words “wizard” and “mere mortals” is a bit playful. It is self-deprecating if you consider yourself part of the mortals and arrogant if you consider yourself part of the wizards (but I don’t think the latter is the case here). I personally would use more neutral terms like “less experienced” and “more experienced”, but I don’t think anyone can deny that those groups exists although they don’t have clear boundaries.
Furthermore, I do think it would be good to have better documentation and explanations for less experienced Haskellers. However, I do believe that explaining things is a skill that is not necessarily proportional to a person’s Haskell or general programming ability. And perhaps more importantly explaining things can take a lot of effort. So I wouldn’t blame for example Edward Kmett for creating libraries like hyperfunctions
, which have practically no documentation. One the other hand he should certainly not be praised only because he writes such esoteric packages. If nobody can understand the libraries that you write then you haven’t really contributed anything to the community.