I think a more objective analysis would admit that it does require this, albeit sometimes not every Monday. And the article makes exactly this concession toward

I think a more objective analysis would admit that it does require this, albeit sometimes not every Monday. And the article makes exactly this concession toward the end, to which I suspect GP’s comment was a glib reference. The objective counterpoint to this glib interpretation IS NOT that, in FP, one never has to rearchitect the logic narrowing a program’s state space. Instead, an objective counterpoint might be more along the lines of this: Yes, sometimes business rules evolve in a way that diverges from business logic. Yes, in a codebase that narrows its state space according to the prior business rules, that evolution may require revision to how state space is narrowed. But once that’s done, it is done. It doesn’t require adjusting dozens of special cases incidental to the previous business rules’ implementation: it only requires adjusting the special cases inherent to the business rules. That’s objective. And it’s also objective to say that whether it’s compelling will depend on the business’s tolerance for that objectivity (or in lucky cases: its embrace of same).