Sure. I presume you're asking about why FP is easier, though if you're wondering about my language there's more info at https::/darklang.com. I think the quote

Sure. I presume you're asking about why FP is easier, though if you're wondering about my language there's more info at https::/darklang.com. I think the quote about the gorilla and the banana and the jungle is a really important piece. It's just hard to compose things in OO languages unless they're designed to be used together. Whereas in an FP language, you focus on simpler primitives (arrays, hashtables, nullable types, and errors values typically, depending on the language), and you have a ton of functions that know how to work with those, so you kinda use them for everything. A second reason is static typing (doesn't apply to the lisp family of FP). Good static typing makes it very easy to understand what's happening, and makes it hard(er) to make errors. For example, in OCaml, Elm and Haskell, it's impossible to have a NullPointerException, which is the biggest bug class in Java. Similarly, the biggest problem in a python/ruby codebase is "what exactly is this thing I have", a problem eliminated by the type system as well. Of course, these features have a cost. It can sometimes be trickier to do things that are easy in dynamic OO languages like Python (and of course Haskell has layers of complexity so I don't recommend going near it), esp the learning curve if you're not familiar with FP. But being in deep in a functional codebase is much much easier than being in a deep in a java, ruby, python, js, etc, codebase. If you're looking to check FP out, I recommend Elm, ReasonML, or Clojure.