>I mentioned type safety in passing Thank you, that's what I meant. > The claim that FP improves correctness similarly does not follow any law of software cor

>I mentioned type safety in passing Thank you, that's what I meant. > The claim that FP improves correctness similarly does not follow any law of software correctness. If either homeopathy or FP were to have an effect, it would have to be through some as-of-yet undiscovered process. Again you are conflating could and should. Let's simplify: Homeopathy CANNOT be used, since the concept fundamentally don't work and hence SHOULD not be used. FP for correctness CAN be used, since we do have examples of functional languages that can be used with formal verification tools, type-based or otherwise. Whether it SHOULD be used, does not follow from whether it CAN/CANNOT be used. That's a question for the sociology of software engineering, and like you say, that's complex. >People should use whatever paradigm/language they like I agree, which is why I dislike when people try to associate certain preferences with pseudoscience.