> There's certainly not a cabal of project managers forcing C++ down peoples' throats. So instead of calling the reasons stupid, why not try to find out what th

> There's certainly not a cabal of project managers forcing C++ down peoples' throats. So instead of calling the reasons stupid, why not try to find out what this hidden variable is? Project managers do still matter. I've had an incredibly hard time convincing my current project manager that pure FP languages will pay off for us and that's even after showing code that abstracts over what we do in other languages in fewer lines and with more extensibility. I've shown things that are impossible to do without higher-kinded types that solve real issues we've had that have impacted business. I've also shown a lighter version of that relying on phantom types to solve the same problem, in order to show that there are levels to this. The core of the problem lied in ensuring that logged data was anonymized. This is something you can encode in the type system with no runtime overhead so that it's impossible to log something that's not pre-sanitized. It's very hard to convince someone who's experience extends to Java & JavaScript that there are languages that allow you to more precisely and safely encode business logic in ways that make misuse hard if not impossible. It's even harder to convince those people that the overhead of learning something like PureScript will be amortized by the ease of maintenance that you get out of it. The main issue, as far as I see it, is that we continually solve all the issues that arise from our lack of good language choices. We've yet to end up in a situation so bad that we can't solve it within a day, which makes our choices "good enough". The "good enough" that you have right before you is better than the seemingly unknown that someone is promising you and no amount of code examples addressing your issues is going to change that.