How is making things worse going to rectify that flaw?

And that proves what, exactly? “Noone I know has” is a classic case of unrepresentative sample.

A sample size of one was hardly representative to begin with. No one has presented an argument to explain when and why the majority of industry moved towards functional programming; that's of course, because it hasn't ever done it, despite ample opportunities. Prove it for yourself if you don't believe me; I think you'll find everything from operating systems to databases to web browsers written in an imperative or object oriented style. A single example, (which later reverses itself), is hardly compelling evidence of the superiority of functional programming in industry.

The other Anonymonks have already called you out on that one; this is a straw man.

No, it isn't. The List::Util system is quick to explain how all these typical functions can be implemented using reduce(), and that reduce() is the only function you really need.

An approach that contrasts the approach advocated by the reduce-is-everything FP crowd was exactly what I contrasted with a normal, non-clever approach.

Quit the fallacies.

Fine. Why don't you quit your own, then? Quit the self-denial that says that FP is a major industry player, or appropriate for the workplace. Quit the cowboy mentality that goes with FP; the elitist crap that says that since something *can* be made complex, it *must* be made complex. Quit the "lets have fun being clever" approach to code; and go with trying to actually make code simple, obvious, and maintainable. Try professionalism for a change.

Okay, rant over. I doubt I've convinced you of anything, so I quit. You "win".