I’m very pro FP in general, but saying that its inherently more fit for writing software is a baseless claim. People are also unnecessarily harsh about OO, as if somehow the entire industry is operating orders of magnitude less efficiently then they would be if they just magically changed paradigm. FP has its own tradeoffs. Nothing is less trustworthy than a zealot who claims their religion is the one true answer.
Logic and software are fundamentally complex. Djikstra said that software is “radical novelty.” It exists at a scale beyond anything the human race has ever built before, that’s fairly inarguable. He was also very fond of imperative programming, and was able to formally verify his imperative programs. Check out his book, A Discipline of Programming, where he goes over the mathematical theory of a simple imperative language.
There’s nothing more “mathematically correct” about the lambda calculus vs. Turing machines. Both are equivalent models. Whether or not state is implicit or explicit, state and time are a part of computation.
I am not saying FP is a perfect fit, but since nothing ever is a atleast write something more reliable with less indirections.
I like FP for the simplicity of it, the problem with OO is overemphasis on structural design and frequent indirections to name every entity as a noun with its own set of Data structures and state maintenance routines.
To answer your question if Industry is operating less efficiently? Maybe but there is no empirical evidence for it.
Considering all things equal software is inherently complex and OO is a real world abstraction to solve the complexity, but we end up introducing more complexity than we start out to solve, which is why i consider going back to roots and try a different approach as OO didnt actually deliver on the promise.
Logic and software are fundamentally complex. Djikstra said that software is “radical novelty.” It exists at a scale beyond anything the human race has ever built before, that’s fairly inarguable. He was also very fond of imperative programming, and was able to formally verify his imperative programs. Check out his book, A Discipline of Programming, where he goes over the mathematical theory of a simple imperative language.
There’s nothing more “mathematically correct” about the lambda calculus vs. Turing machines. Both are equivalent models. Whether or not state is implicit or explicit, state and time are a part of computation.