I came to this conclusion because as soon as a paradigm becomes popular clueless people who don't really understand the foundation will start using it. Then you have consultants popping up who don't know much either but come up with slick patterns to sell. This happened with OOP and will happen with FP.
Functional programming is not that easy to do right in the real world. It takes some level of abstract thinking and understanding. Not too many people in this industry really want to do this level of thinking. They just want a recipe for getting things done with the least amount of thinking.
Yes, but the foundation under OOP is considerably less solid. I agree that you can write a bad program in any language, but the fact remains that it is impossible to write certain bugs in statically typed pure functional languages and that functions as a base abstraction are more apt for describing computation than objects are.
Totally agree. But don't forget that the real-world is pretty messy and a lot of people are not willing to think deeply about a problem. They want quick solutions. Out of the people I work with I would trust only a small percentage took the time to understand OOP. Only a few guys will take the time to understand FP. The other people pretty much just copy/paste boiler plate code.
Wow, that's depressing. I haven't had a lot of experience working with other programmers but if this is what the software industry looks like I can understand why you'd have these opinions.
Functional programming is not that easy to do right in the real world. It takes some level of abstract thinking and understanding. Not too many people in this industry really want to do this level of thinking. They just want a recipe for getting things done with the least amount of thinking.