I completely agree that the publicly available tooling in the functional world is shit. Haskell doesn't even have a proper debugger, let alone IDE support. KDB

I completely agree that the publicly available tooling in the functional world is shit. Haskell doesn't even have a proper debugger, let alone IDE support. KDB as you say is common with financial companies. In fact I have only heard about it being used by financial companies. I have only used J, another array based programming system, and I found it brilliant for processing data. KDB has a niche in the financial world, and there is a reason for it. First Derivatives relies on KDB. Obviously anyone who is doing anything interesting and profitable in this area is not going to be making it public, just like the world of betting. There's another problem in the functional world, which is that the vast majority of publicly available talks you can find involve 90% wanking over the type system or how functional can beat C in some edge case (inevitably coded C-style) rather than focussing on the real world applications of what functional is suited to. You're right that there are a lot of people in the functional world who have no idea about imperative, and could probably not tell the difference between a MOV and an LEA. I wager that these are not the same types of people who have actual high-paying jobs writing functional code. The companies I mentioned have their own tooling, even their own compilers. They're applying functional programming to the niche it's suited to, namely providing a well-typed, functional interface to the more nitty-gritty systems, which are necessarily made up of Excel, COBOL and FTP file drops. You're just not going to hear about this in the typical type-system wank talk/blog on Youtube/Medium.