I have yet to encounter any problem that would be better served with an imperative for loop or nested for loop than an immutable list comprehension in Clojure, for instance.
Do you have actual science (comparative studies --plural, not some single paper--, etc) behind the assertion of "better" for the functional approach or is it just blind faith?
An empirical observation says that the most important software in the world, including most of the internet infrastructure, OSes, databases, filesystems, office suites, embedded systems and such, powering 99% of the modern era is written in an imperative or OO language.
That's a fact. Whereas "there would be less issues if we had made them in a functional language" is mere conjecture, unless proven otherwise.
Note that common errors such as null pointer exceptions are not only avoided in functional languages for example, but in any imperative language with optionals, bounds checking etc too. So if one is gonna bring those up as something in favor of functional programming they're not giving the full picture.
An empirical observation says that the most important software in the world, including most of the internet infrastructure, OSes, databases, filesystems, office suites, embedded systems and such, powering 99% of the modern era is written in an imperative or OO language.
That's a fact. Whereas "there would be less issues if we had made them in a functional language" is mere conjecture, unless proven otherwise.
Note that common errors such as null pointer exceptions are not only avoided in functional languages for example, but in any imperative language with optionals, bounds checking etc too. So if one is gonna bring those up as something in favor of functional programming they're not giving the full picture.