Opinions on functional programming and OCaml
There&#x27;s a point-by-point rebuttal in the comments that is also worth looking at:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;vjeux&#x2F;cc2c4f83a6b60d69b79057b6ef651b56#gistcomment-2302804" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;gist.github.com&#x2F;vjeux&#x2F;cc2c4f83a6b60d69b79057b6ef651b...</a><p>In my own opinion, I think the author would be better served by sticking with it for a little while longer.<p>And, no, to head off one common strand of arguments at the pass: no, as a Haskeller and FP enthusiast, I (very strongly) do <i>not</i> think pure, statically-typed, globally-type-inferred (?) programming is <i>perfect</i> or some kind of One True Way. Does it have warts? Of course it does, and don&#x27;t believe anyone who tries to tell you otherwise.<p>But the pure FP way of thinking has a lot to offer, and seeing all its idioms through an imperative, C-family-language lens is counterproductive.<p>A good thing to keep in mind here is the &quot;Principle of Charity&quot;: when faced with an unfamiliar spin on something you know how to do in a different way, it&#x27;s useful not to approach it with the intent of disproving it. Existential Comics has a guide[0] to learning philosophy as an amateur that talks about this.<p>[0]: <a href="http:&#x2F;&#x2F;existentialcomics.com&#x2F;blog" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;existentialcomics.com&#x2F;blog</a>