[rowanG077]

There are 101 `(package` definitions and 58 out of them have more than 6 nest level, which I would consider more than excessive. That's an incidence of over 50%.

Beside I don't think I'm alien to the functional way of writing things. I write mostly Haskell professionally. But Haskell doesn't casually suffer from making insane expression nesting the default.

[troad]

You may not be a stranger to the functional style, but you do seem a stranger to the Lisp style, which is closely allied. A lot of FP originated in Schemes and Lisps - Haskell is greatly influenced by the ML family, which is itself greatly influenced by Lisp. Modern FP is a style that would be recognisable to a Lisp programmer fifty years ago, when everyone else was writing imperative soup.

I don't think there's much anyone can say that's going to change your mind. You're strongly coming off as though you've formed a view, based on little experience, and will now Ctrl-F cherry-picked examples to sustain it rather than listen to any contrary information. I respectfully suggest greater open-mindedness and a willingness to reserve conclusions in the absence of data.

I personally don't use Lisp too much, so I'm not particularly invested in this exchange, but I know from experience it's not even remotely what you're describing it as. Everything about Lisps tends towards minimal nesting, from the use of paredit to edit expressions through REPL-based workflows.

The only thing this exchange has done, as someone who programs in FP exclusively, is make me reminisce about and yearn for Lisp. It's a wonderful language for FP.