[ReleaseCandidat]

> The irony is, that FP could probably have had a lot more success if it didn't clamour on about pure functions so much

Except functional languages like Lisps and the MLs never were pure, the only (used by a significant number of people) has been Miranda/Haskell (ignoring Coq and the other proof assistents). Or, to put it in other words: ML (no, not that ML) turned 50 this year, Scheme is oder than 50 too and Miranda/Haskell ~36. There never had been a shortage of "impure" functional languages since OOP existed.

[usrbinbash]

Yes, there have. And not a single one of them was able to even gain a sizeable fraction of the mindspace that imperative languages have, let alone replace or obsolete even a single one of them.

So maybe it's time for FP as a whole to accept the fact, that there seems to be something fundamental about the way it's paraded implementations look and feel like, that puts off a lot of programmers.

Maybe it's time for FP to accept that the paradigm as a whole has a lot to contribute that is useful to everyone, but doesn't need a new language with largely different syntactic constructs to do so.

[mejutoco]

Strict/constrained things are generally less appealing. That does not mean they are not the right approach. I dont agree with the popularity contest approach though.

Many languages are in use for different things without the need for a language to win. It is a bit anthropomorphic to approach tools like that IMO.

Instead, there has been a healthy influence of more research FP languages into mainstream languages (as you mention), more interesting experimental languages, etc. Aka everything working as intended.

[usrbinbash]

> I dont agree with the popularity contest approach though.

Insofar as it didn't prevent the good parts of FP to become mainstream features, I agree.

But the popularity contest IS important for language emergence. I still believe there would be a place for a functional language that strives to adhere to the principles more stricly, and that programming could benefit from such a language gaining a lot of traction. But, as mentioned before, if such a language requires people to deal with a very different syntax, or applies it's principles too rigidly, it will likely fail the popularity contest.

It also is important for paradigms to become pervasive. As I mentioned, FP has a lot to teach even to OOP people. Writing functional code is a great way to organise a program.

But tell that to a young software developer who has only ever been served enterprise spaghetti OOP pasta with extra abstraction sauce garnished with pseudo-encapsulation cheese, and for whom "functional programming" is something he only saw ridiculed as a meme on some subreddits.

No, popularity isn't the only important thing. But it can help things to reach their potential.

[wavemode]

Lisp is not a functional programming language.