> seems to be a kind of haphazard recollection of programming language history Agree. The talk is very thin on the real differences between OOP and functional

> seems to be a kind of haphazard recollection of programming language history Agree. The talk is very thin on the real differences between OOP and functional languages. This old comment [0] points out that functional languages tend to make it far harder to reason about low-level details, for instance. Personally I think it's more fundamental, and isn't about any such technical limitations. People have a strong intuition for time, which is emphasised in imperative languages (including OOP), which have the semicolon operator or an implicit equivalent. The concepts at play in the fundamentals of Haskell are simply harder, and 'more mathematical', than the sequenced mutation-based statements of imperative/OOP languages. To put that more provocatively: does anyone doubt that the average Haskell programmer is smarter than the average JavaScript programmer? I'm not convinced this is just because only the curious bother to learn Haskell. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21281004 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21281004