> It was in response to a link to a Haskell library, so I assumed that you had some experience with said library. Nope, I don't. I don't even use or like Haske

> It was in response to a link to a Haskell library, so I assumed that you had some experience with said library. Nope, I don't. I don't even use or like Haskell, though I happen to know it relatively well. > In any case, the issue is less with pure functional languages themselves, and much more with some of the people who use some of the more popular ones. I'd have no idea, since I evaluate technologies solely on the basis of their technical merits. In any case, in response to your earlier “weeding out” comment, I'm not really a member of any particular community to begin with, so it would be difficult (“only somewhat impossible”) to “weed me out” of anywhere. > Instead, they lay out problems that their solutions solve. Simple as that. The problem (yes, singular) solved by Rust's lifetime system admits a clear, concise, one-sentence even, description, which, as a matter of fact, is about half as long as this sentence. The benefits are immediately clear to anyone who has had to program defensively to mitigate that very same problem. > It's not terribly difficult to talk about ideas in a positive manner without tearing apart people who hold other ideas, Yes, but I deliberately chose not to. I'm expressing frustration because on a daily basis I have to fix code written by people who don't have the analytical skills necessary to determine what their code does in the general case. I see example-oriented programming as a very dangerous paradigm to adopt, since it would exacerbate the problems I already face.