Yes, and AFAIK, you're pretty much free to cause side-effects in functional languages; it's just a bit awkward and somewhat discouraged. It's kind of like how C still has goto, yet it's still a structured programming language.

Even in Haskell, which tries to control side-effects more, it's not hard; it's just that it's stuck with an "IO" annotation. Any function that calls an IO function also becomes an IO function; it's infectious.

  main :: IO ()
  main = putStrLn "hello, world"

There's some real confusion about what "functional" means, because it depends on who's speaking. Writing _exclusively_ pure functions is a Haskell thing. A much looser definition of the functional style would be to say that you mostly write pure functions over immutable data, but when you have to actually do a side effect you write a procedure that talks to the outside world and go on with your day. If you go digging in this site's archives from about ten years ago, I recall numerous debates about what constituted functional programming, and whether the latter counts at all. But if we _are_ talking about Haskell, the answer to your question is obviously "Monads."

It has an effect. Whether it's a "side effect" depends on how we've defined that.

One way of viewing Haskell is that you are lazily constructing the single composite "effect on the world" called main.

    helloWorld :: IO ()

then is a value representing an effect, but it only actually happens when it becomes a part of main.

Threads complicate this but don't completely destroy the model.

The string "Hello World" evaluates to itself, what else do you need?

Edit: Eh, I thought it was a fun quip.

> That needs a qualifier: it can make easy problems tough if you're not familiar with how to solve them in a functional context.

All problems are easy if you are familiar with how to solve them. Unfortunately it's part of the problem to find out how to solve them, and that can be unusually hard in case of functional programming. Like solving something with recursion instead of loops + states. There is a reason cookbooks use loops not recursion.

Not really, certain problems are just inherently harder to express in a purely functional way than they are in an imperative way (and the reverse is just as true). For example, computing a histogram is much simpler in imperative terms (keep an array of histogram values, go through the original list, add 1 to the array element corresponding to the current element in this list) than in a purely functional style, especially if you need a somewhat efficient implementation.

My favorite example of this is implementing quicksort. It's significantly easier in C than it is in Haskell.

Absolutely! Any beginner can readily combine the catamorphisms and anamorphisms in `recursion-schemes`, or use the ready-made hylomorphisms for common tasks such as setting a value in a data structure. What could be simpler? /s

https://wiki.haskell.org/Zygohistomorphic_prepromorphisms

By what measure? Haskell can be a huge productivity multiplier. The standard library is built upon many powerful, unifying and consistent mathematical abstractions. For example, there is almost no boilerplate to write for any traversal, mapping, error handling etc. The average Pythonista simply has no idea what they are missing. But Haskell doesn't have anywhere near the third party ecosystem of Python, so is less productive by some measures.

But (and I agree with the GP) they are. They are overwhelmingly more productive, in a way that you often can't even compare quantitatively.

They are also a lot less productive. It depends entirely on what you are doing.

It's an overgeneralisation.

If you try and turn F# into Haskell at home you may run into that problem.

F# is functional first language so if an object oriented or procedural solution is the right call the options right there when you need it.

Writing recursive descent parsers in F# is a lot of fun with ADTs and pattern matching.

Exactly. I've long held the sentiment, that pure functional programming is easier than imperative programming. The only hard part, is switching from an imperative mindset.