What's easiest is what you're used to. The most popular programming system on earth is Excel, which is firmly in the functional camp.

Or just pump it out of the barge over the period of a month or so while driving around the Pacific. Seawater is already naturally radioactive, and I doubt spreading this barge-full of radioactive water around would make any difference.

One problem for ARM is that every ARM processor and board has different hardware, and that hardware is in different places. Compare this to an x86 PC where you are guaranteed to have basic components at known locations; enough so that a generic OS image can boot. An ARM OS image typically needs a lot of static configuration, custom drivers, board specific bootloader, etc.

Does the GPL require the source code to run on the same piece of hardware? The OP can't build an run new firmware on his router, but can he build and run it on his x86 linux machine with standard tools? If *that* can be done, is it really still a violation? The modified source code has been re-contributed to society. I know that's not really what the OP wants to accomplish though...

Here's a tutorial to get you rolling with OpenGL in SDL under linux. Once you get rolling with that, you can proceed to the NeHe tutorials. http://cone3d.gamedev.net/cgi-bin/index.pl?page=tutorials/ogladv/tut1

What those other FP languages have that Lisp doesn't is a clean concept of *pattern matching*. Sure, you can do pattern matching in Lisp (see Termite Scheme), but its much more verbose than languages that have the syntax and semantics for it built-in.

I agree that Haskell is hard to understand, but only because it is easy to make incredibly dense code. Reading one line of Haskell can load your brain as much as reading 12 lines of anything else. ...And monads are just plain hard.

All that said, as an intermediate Erlang programmer, I am often left yearning for the cleanliness of Haskell syntax and also for S-expressions when I get into metaprogramming.