I agree with you. Yet, strangely enough, it is better. Maybe we could say, easier to read, easier to modify, easier to reuse? Let me return to that last exampl

I agree with you. Yet, strangely enough, it is better. Maybe we could say, easier to read, easier to modify, easier to reuse? Let me return to that last example. Take a program written in procedural style, and an identical program written in a big ball of mud style (all variables are global, one big control flow). This is a discussion from like 1960s. It's harder to write for human, and harder for compiler to compile and make efficient program in procedural style. Yet, I am sure today, you would prefer procedural style. It makes sense (trust me, I actually work with big-ball-of-mud programs written 30+ years ago at work, AMA). I don't care what work the compiler has to do, I care about my own time. Functional programming is just another step on that road. As a side note, I really think people who prefer FP should avoid (over)selling it as more computationally efficient approach, because it still isn't (even though it probably will be in the future). It's a little bit of optimistic dishonesty that IMHO hurts adoption of FP and feeds the misconception that I talk about.