> I am always wary of anything that is promoted as a programming panacea.
Peter Marreck

Fortunately, I have evidence to back my belief: http://macbeth.cs.ucdavis.edu/lang_study.pdf

I am quoting part of the abstract:

“By triangulating findings from different methods,
and controlling for confounding effects such as team size, project
size, and project history, we report that language design does have a
significant, but modest effect on software quality. Most notably, it
does appear that strong typing is modestly better than weak typing,
and among functional languages, static typing is also somewhat better
than dynamic typing. We also find that functional languages are
somewhat better than procedural languages. It is worth noting that
these modest effects arising from language design are overwhelmingly
dominated by the process factors such as project size, team
size, and commit size. However, we hasten to caution the reader
that even these modest effects might quite possibly be due to other,
intangible process factors, e.g., the preference of certain personality
types for functional, static and strongly typed languages.

Not very strong evidence, though.

Granted, there is sort of a dearth of scientific research on comp langs, which is probably why it’s such a faddy space in general.

And that is the problem, there is little scientific research and people seems to struggle to find a good way to conduct those researches. I have read from other studies, such as the one provided by Richard, different conclusions, and I am not aware of any scientific consensus around this question.

Empirical data kills fads. ;)

I beg to disagree, empirical data is used everyday to create fads. You don’t need to fabricate data, just to hide part of it or classify it so that it shows your beliefs. Its done everyday.

The reason why functional languages are “cool” is the same reason all past language paradigms were “cool.” They allowed programmers to accomplish more with less work.

Do you have any evidence of that? :) If that would be true C++ would never be so popular for so much time, since FP is around there before it. I bet you can find many languages (Smalltalk, for example) that allow the programmer to accomplish more with less and still they are not popular. If anything, popularity does not seems to be related to good language design.

If any you said is true FP languages would be much more popular by now. Rich Hickey’s is from 2009, it is 2017 already, how much time is needed? There must be something else that make languages popular.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Vitor Medina Cruz’s story.