[flagged]
Same way some people are quick to read intelligent women as "uppity" though they say nothing that would be read as uppity if said by someone else.
I think outside of HN, there's a large chunk of people out there who just have this prejudice about FP. I am only about 10 years into the software industry and I feel like I'm missing some history that is not recorded anywhere, but lives as a tribal memory.
If it's truly superior, then form a company called Functional Magic or the like and out-compete OOP rivals and eat their lunch. Proof will then be in the pudding, no more talk. (Some co's have tried similar without long-term success, at least outside of niches, as it does well in finance.)
If FP is say 15% more productive, such a company would eventually just outcompete OOers by growing 15% a year. Even 5% a year would catch up in roughly a decade. If you truly believe in FP's superiority, do it! Unleash the FP Kraken! When you are golfing with Warren Buffett & Gates, you can say, "I toldja so, fore!..."
"more productive" is not a singular metric. What indefinite 15% year over year growth in mainstream tech requires is (in addition to favorable market conditions) the ability to get useful work out of huge numbers of very inexperienced people.
Clearly Scheme, for instance, cannot do this better than Java. But this tells you next to nothing about which tool is more productive in the hands of a small team of people who know what they're doing.
This has been tried, usually driven by academics who try to start a business by hiring "elite" coders with the belief that you need many fewer elites to do the same work as "normal" coders. Sometimes they have short-term "hits", but it's usually not a sustainable business model. For one, it takes coders with some business sense and team skills, something the academic type tend to lack: they are idealists who get snagged up on arcane design philosophies. Imagine a room of Sheldon Coopers. I'm just the messenger.