> This is a fact-based discussion of language trade-offs.
I'm sorry, but it's an opinion-based discussion. No hard facts were presented here. While I see the reasoning behind such opinion, it directly contradicts opinion of pure FP proponents and somewhat contradicts my own experience.
> the business use case of that software suddenly demands incrementally mutating some part or introducing subtle violations of the constraints the system was designed to enforce
Sure, sometimes it's very convenient to add quick hacks, but there is definitely a tradeoff from maintainability perspective. I wouldn't like to work on a codebase full of mutable state and constraints broken in unprincipled ways.
On the other hand, I never used Haskell and religiously functional Scala, so maybe I underestimate the scale of the problem. For me Scala with immutable collections, ADT, lenses, IO, typealiases and typeclasses as extension mechanism served extremely well. Could you please provide few concrete examples of type system abuse?
I'm sorry, but it's an opinion-based discussion. No hard facts were presented here. While I see the reasoning behind such opinion, it directly contradicts opinion of pure FP proponents and somewhat contradicts my own experience.
> the business use case of that software suddenly demands incrementally mutating some part or introducing subtle violations of the constraints the system was designed to enforce
Sure, sometimes it's very convenient to add quick hacks, but there is definitely a tradeoff from maintainability perspective. I wouldn't like to work on a codebase full of mutable state and constraints broken in unprincipled ways. On the other hand, I never used Haskell and religiously functional Scala, so maybe I underestimate the scale of the problem. For me Scala with immutable collections, ADT, lenses, IO, typealiases and typeclasses as extension mechanism served extremely well. Could you please provide few concrete examples of type system abuse?