You may find it interesting to study FP a bit more, because recursion, when understood, is pretty universally felt as way more readable than its imperative alternatives.
I also usually find currying extremely practical and easier for me when it's available.
Most of us that only use FP in our day job don't do it out of masochism, AFAICT. I certainly don't.
Yes, recursion can be used to define a function inductively, just as we would in maths. However, recursion is the "GOTO" of functional programming and we prefer to used structured programming if possible, e.g maps/folds/unfolds etc. That would be a better reply for the parent post.
Of course I use combinators more often than I write recursive functions. But if someone finds recursion less readable, I still think they're missing something crucial.
And I don't think recursion is a GOTO that should be avoided. It's a useful tool that's easy to read and reason about.
I agreed with your parent post and upvoted you, but too many inexperienced with functional programming claim it is all (or too much) recursion. I think this should be challenged.
Yes recursion is a useful tool, just like GOTO and is sometimes necessary or more practical. But it is better to e.g. use a fold if you can because that further constrains and aids reasoning. For example, a fold will always terminate unlike general recursion.
I recommend looking into recursion schemes, if you aren't familiar with them.
I also usually find currying extremely practical and easier for me when it's available.
Most of us that only use FP in our day job don't do it out of masochism, AFAICT. I certainly don't.