> It's a lot simpler to change code that is written in terms of for loops and accumulator variables, than it is to change code written in terms of maps, folds,

> It's a lot simpler to change code that is written in terms of for loops and accumulator variables, than it is to change code written in terms of maps, folds, intercalates, whatever. for loops are less structured than maps or folds meaning that divining the meaning of one is more difficult. I think that for loops seem easier because many developers have a lot of previous experience with imperative constructs. > In any reasonably architected software, you can see how a function depends on global state by looking at its argument list. Most code isn't reasonably architected. > If you're in a position to choose Haskell, then you're also in a position to make your software this way. But then you lose out on all of the other advantages of Haskell. I'd love to hear your responses to the reasons why the Haxl team at facebook chose Haskell. Here's a link: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7874537 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7874537