[applepple]

It's always the case that when I present these arguments above to FP devs, they respond with personal insults instead of counter-arguments. This suggests that they know my arguments are accurate but they are too invested in FP and are in denial - It's emotional, so they respond emotionally.

You shouldn't think of it like "I've been fooled and wasted all this time on FP". You should think about it like "I gave FP a thorough analysis over several years and it was a worthwhile experiment which didn't work out but I learned a lot from it".

I also spent quite a lot of time working with and reading FP code over the last 15 years. That's why I can criticize it with confidence today. It was not a waste.

[oriolid]

Comments like "Functional Programming solves simple problems in a complex way, "Abstractions in FP tend to be all over the place." or "If you don't care about structure, why not just write the entire system as a single file and define thousands of functions which call each other all over the place?" don't really invite polite discussion. To me they look like you either are reacting on pure emotion, or don't understand what you are writing about (note that this opposite of "accurate"). It also seems that you think that I'm whatever you believe "functional programmers" are.

If there's something we maybe agree on, it's that enforcing pure functionality (I guess that's what you're writing about. If you think functions as first class objects is bad, you're incorrigibly wrong) is about as bad as maximal OOP that Martin is preaching. There's a lot of space between these two extremes if you're willing to look. And a lot of money to be made by sticking to an ideology and preaching it.

[applepple]

It would be an interesting experiment if you could show me the GitHub repo of the best written open source FP project you've ever encountered and I could point out its flaws and rank them on a scale based on how critical they are in terms of maintenance and performance.