The article was good enough. There was a lack of mentioning the many drawbacks that this approach can have[1], but it was a well written description of it. Man

The article was good enough. There was a lack of mentioning the many drawbacks that this approach can have[1], but it was a well written description of it. Many of the comments, however, are... Not quite as good; there was a bit of elitism and maybe even zealotry[2]. As usual, it soured an interest in FP (not that I've ever needed it) that an even slightly humbler approach might have fostered. Now I'll dabble a bit in the self-congratulatory tone of some of the comments: I have never written a line of F# and the last time I dabbled with a primarily functional language was a couple of toy projects in Clojure (quite different) years ago and yet I was able to follow along the code and the explanations. Functional approaches aren't all that different or revelatory for someone with enough development experience[3] and it's just a different approach, who would have thought it? [1]: Not unexpected; functional programmers who've convinced themselves that FP has no drawbacks are unfortunately common. I'm not saying the author is one of those, though; he probably thought the article was long enough as is. [2]: Also not unexpected in any discussion about paradigms, specially functional programming. [3]: I've seen the general idea discussed here in different more multiparadigm languages.