I get how the author feels, but, apart from the fact Elm does not _claim_ to be ready for production use, this seems to come down to "functional languages are d

I get how the author feels, but, apart from the fact Elm does not _claim_ to be ready for production use, this seems to come down to "functional languages are different from non-functional languages and I can't wrap my head around it in a couple of hours". E.g. > a language that seems to inherit not just nice types and largely ok or even nice syntax from Haskell but also a stubborn approach to prefer (imagined) purity over practicality [...] Why "imagined"? I do think that prohibiting side-effects is a good thing. I'll be the first to admit that I'm not actually good at writing pure code that's easy to grasp, but I imagine that to be a lack of practice, just like w/ OOP. Bottom line is that I don't get why people pick up a functional language, which also happens to be in development, and then bash it for being a functional language and not yet ready for production. This seems like pointless bashing.