For me the best analogy is carpentry vs. architecture. I’m not saying anything about FP In particular. But there’s a cohort of people that just want to “build s

For me the best analogy is carpentry vs. architecture. I’m not saying anything about FP In particular. But there’s a cohort of people that just want to “build stuff” like you said. And then there’s people who want to architect a solution because they feel that what they’re building needs to last, or can’t fail. I don’t think either mentality is wrong. You wouldn’t hire an architect to build you a closet, and you wouldn’t hire a carpenter to build you an office building. It’s about context. I think each type of person bothers each other when they try and apply their thinking as dogma to all contexts. I can name a million times where a global variable was fine, or a long function was fine, or some duplication was absolutely fine. I can also name a million more where I really wanted exactly one location for a piece of knowledge, and a million more where I wanted to separate database queries from in-memory logic. I think the problem is when you use the term “Industry Programmer.” Not all programmers want to work on the same thing. This theoretical “average” person who just wants to “get work done” doesn’t exist in my experience. It’s just one type of programmer who likes one type of context. That’s ok, but no one should hate on people for working on what they’re interested in. It’s the same thing with math. Many people feel that math is not practical or relevant. Until you want to do something like build a skyscraper, or a house, or design a power grid. Then all of a sudden math isn’t an option. If we only listened to the “average” person, we probably wouldn’t have that many useful things.