One issue I have with ad hoc naming convention is that while they may make the first month of learning nice and easy they usually don't have the nice synthesizing effect where all of your notations come together beautifully.

Math is terse and there is an initial hurdle to get over. However, once that initial hurdle is cleared there are a lot of things that become obvious as a direct consequence of the notational bootstrapping that we did.

With that said, every time I start looking at Haskell I end up playing with category theory instead which may be indicative of something.

The parent seems to agree with you, that Haskell is maybe too eager to keep to 'mathematical' names, but it almost sounds like you interpreted the parent the other way around?

Your comment reads almost equally well with two different interpretations. One a restatement of fact, and the other a rather rude response to a misunderstood message.

There may not be a general balance. That would explain why so many languages scratch different people's itches.