I’m bothered by the axiomatic acceptance that all mutation is bad and unavoidable, and the only way to mitigate this is to go full monad. I haven’t written any Haskell but it strikes me as a little irresponsible to say that any explicit limiting of mutation is insufficient. I think it’s probably safe to say that adopting immutable data structures and patterns that limit the effects of widespread mutation of state is a step in the right direction.
This kind of advocacy doesn’t really do much for functional languages, which really argues the superiority of a given technique if you already believe in the stated goals of that technique. If you hate mutation enough to eliminate it completely from your repertoire, you’re probably already sold on FP.
I appreciate the intent, but fundamentalism is an appropriate way to label this piece.
It is important to understand who Erik Meijer is and where he is coming from.
Using terms like fundamentalism, sold and hate would seem like you are arguing from a position of opinion.
Thanks for the background!