It was in response to a link to a Haskell library, so I assumed that you had some experience with said library.
In any case, the issue is less with pure functional languages themselves, and much more with some of the people who use some of the more popular ones. You don't usually find people who enjoy programming primarily in Rust or C++ or even F# looking down on others and telling people who might potentially be interested in learning more about some feature or other that they'd be too stupid to understand, at least not to the same degree.
When people try to explain Rust's lifetime system, they don't start off by telling people that garbage collectors are for people too stupid to define data structures which manage memory properly. When they talk about static typing, they don't tell people that they're idiots if they enjoy Python's duck typing. Instead, they lay out problems that their solutions solve. Simple as that.
It's not terribly difficult to talk about ideas in a positive manner without tearing apart people who hold other ideas, either through ignorance or simply different experiences, most of the time.
> It was in response to a link to a Haskell library, so I assumed that you had some experience with said library.
Nope, I don't. I don't even use or like Haskell, though I happen to know it relatively well.
> In any case, the issue is less with pure functional languages themselves, and much more with some of the people who use some of the more popular ones.
I'd have no idea, since I evaluate technologies solely on the basis of their technical merits. In any case, in response to your earlier “weeding out” comment, I'm not really a member of any particular community to begin with, so it would be difficult (“only somewhat impossible”) to “weed me out” of anywhere.
> Instead, they lay out problems that their solutions solve. Simple as that.
The problem (yes, singular) solved by Rust's lifetime system admits a clear, concise, one-sentence even, description, which, as a matter of fact, is about half as long as this sentence. The benefits are immediately clear to anyone who has had to program defensively to mitigate that very same problem.
> It's not terribly difficult to talk about ideas in a positive manner without tearing apart people who hold other ideas,
Yes, but I deliberately chose not to. I'm expressing frustration because on a daily basis I have to fix code written by people who don't have the analytical skills necessary to determine what their code does in the general case. I see example-oriented programming as a very dangerous paradigm to adopt, since it would exacerbate the problems I already face.
> You don't usually find people who enjoy programming primarily in Rust or C++ or even F# looking down on others [...]
Yes, though I think C++ might have gone through that phase when it was younger? (I am too young myself to say for sure, and wasn't really online in the much smaller communities back then nor working.)
In any case, the issue is less with pure functional languages themselves, and much more with some of the people who use some of the more popular ones. You don't usually find people who enjoy programming primarily in Rust or C++ or even F# looking down on others and telling people who might potentially be interested in learning more about some feature or other that they'd be too stupid to understand, at least not to the same degree.
When people try to explain Rust's lifetime system, they don't start off by telling people that garbage collectors are for people too stupid to define data structures which manage memory properly. When they talk about static typing, they don't tell people that they're idiots if they enjoy Python's duck typing. Instead, they lay out problems that their solutions solve. Simple as that.
It's not terribly difficult to talk about ideas in a positive manner without tearing apart people who hold other ideas, either through ignorance or simply different experiences, most of the time.