Proof that Haskell sucks!

Check out the Rosetta Code page on Y Combinator.  In many languages that you would not even expect, this functional combinator is simple and straighforward.

For instance, Algol 68!

Haskell? "The obvious definition of the Y combinator in Haskell canot be used because it contains an infinite recursive type (a = a -> b). Defining a data type (Mu) allows this recursion to be broken. "

What kind of a shit functional language doesn't let you define the Y combinator using the obvious definition?

Oh right, the same one in which contortions are required to put items of different types into the same linked list.

>>8
The difference is that yours is a recursive function where the function name is visible within its body while the Y combinator is a combinator.