If you asked a Haskell expert what their favorite imperative language is, they'll probably say "Haskell."
That is because it "makes it easier to program imperatively" more than any other language I've met.
That is because it "makes it easier to program imperatively" more than any other language I've met.
For the sake of argument, let's assume the classic imperative language is easier to approach for rookies. If it's also the easiest language to write bugs and make mistakes with, wouldn't the "harder" FP language still be a net win? As long as its learning curve isn't unapproachably steep -- i.e. so steep that your time to market becomes awful -- what is the advantage of the imperative language's ease to hit the ground running and writing lots of bugs?
If 'aa' also has the advantage of providing semantics for producing significantly less buggy code in time 't-n-m' at some future time then that is also an advantage but a distinctly different one and one which can be deferred [and probably will be given a significant learning curve].
The first step toward the modern automobile was the 'horseless carriage' not the Countach.
Lamborghini makes shit cars. The only reason people rave about them is because they have giant engines. A car without a reverse gear is one of the stupidest ideas in automobile history.