> He's right though. He really isn't, and the blatant attempt to poison the well is a clear indicator of the lacking arguments. I repeat: people don't even bo

> He's right though. He really isn't, and the blatant attempt to poison the well is a clear indicator of the lacking arguments. I repeat: people don't even bother spending a few minutes trying to get a pure FP hello world going. Zero barriers to entry, zero challenge, zero resistance. But in spite of the lack of any obstacle or challenge, pure FP fails to present a value proposition that justifies even a five minute effort from pretty much anyone. > Yeah, over a long time it will certainly happen that a good idea will manifest itself. But that process can take a long time, centuries even. This baseless assertion holds no water in software development. It does not take a multi-generation epifany to convince someone to use pure FP. All it takes is a single person willing to invest it's time. But still, those who do invest their time with ivory tower tests don't see value that justifies pursuing any effort, and thus don't bother pushing it anywhere beyond a cursory test. Why is that? > It's often easier to stick to something existing because change requires effort. This assertion holds no water at all, as pure FP frameworks exist for decades and still people do not bother with them. Why is that? And how can you hold such a cognitive dissonance of claiming something is so great and yet it does not exist in practice because no one ever bothered to take advantage of such greatness? Also, are we supposed to pretend that even Microsoft offers pure FP languages that integrate with their .NET stack and still no one bothers with it at all, even when they can even contam it's use to very small and self contained modules? The truth of the matter is that pure FP fails to gather at attention beyond navel-gazing ivory tower types because it quite blatantly fails to present a value proposition. That's the core of the issue. I mean, languages like Rust are increasing popularity like wildfire in spite of it's radically different and restrictive take on resource management because it presents a clear and inequivocal value proposition. But pure FP frameworks, in spite of having a head start of decades and a foothold on dark corners of academia, fails to convince the public that it's in their best interests to even peek in that general direction. Why is that? Do we really need to resort to absurd conspiracy theories to get an answer to that question?