Same here. It's simply not worth switching. And also Haskell is probably not going to provide much more productivity in lots of areas.
1) that's amazing, some of us aren't smart enough to do it without functional programming
2) I bet you could write 2-3x as much functional code and maintain the correctness. Reason being understanding doesn't require keeping track of mutable states in your head.
I have dealt with ML while doing my MSc in software engineering, and wrote my dissertation on it.
I didn't see any improvement regarding bugs and state.
What I have discovered in functional languages is that while in fp you are not required to keep track of mutable states, you are required to keep track of values passed in parameters.
In my humble opinion, those two things are equal in difficulty and consequences.
I had almost the same number of bugs in my ML application that I would have in the imperative program, but they manifested in different ways.
I don't think FP requires the programmer to keep less things in their head, provided that the imperative program follows some good principles, that is.
I'm not so sure, I'll give this idea some thought though.
> I had almost the same number of bugs in my ML application that I would have in the imperative program, but they manifested in different ways.
Can you talk about some of the different ways the same bug manifested?
I.e. the defect ratio was similar, bugs in my FP program were of different type than in the imperative ones.