Wait, What? Immutable closures are way less useful than mutable closures. Immutable closures can pretty much only be used to create thunks. Mutable closures are basically objects.
On the other hand, if your closure depends on global mutable state, than you have a piece of GLOBAL state that is VARIABLE. Sometimes known as the root of all evil.
But maybe I've been damaged/spoiled by scheme and/or not done enough concurrency programming to get your point.
Anytime I see someone claim that immutability is "less useful" than mutability, I know that the individual has not spent a long time working in an immutable language. Because things are tremendously easier when mutation rarely enters the picture. But, it can take some experience to grasp this.
Meh, depends on the situation. Some problems are easily solved in a functional way, some problems aren't, and then there are problems that are best solved using a mixed approach. Sometimes a good old-fashioned for loop (or the equivalent) and stateful I/O is "tremendously easier" to work with than layers of tail recursion and I/O monads. Professional developers are expected to know which tool to use when, rather than religiously sticking to one approach in all circumstances.
I have yet to encounter any problem that would be better served with an imperative for loop or nested for loop than an immutable list comprehension in Clojure, for instance.
Do you have actual science (comparative studies --plural, not some single paper--, etc) behind the assertion of "better" for the functional approach or is it just blind faith?
An empirical observation says that the most important software in the world, including most of the internet infrastructure, OSes, databases, filesystems, office suites, embedded systems and such, powering 99% of the modern era is written in an imperative or OO language.
That's a fact. Whereas "there would be less issues if we had made them in a functional language" is mere conjecture, unless proven otherwise.
Note that common errors such as null pointer exceptions are not only avoided in functional languages for example, but in any imperative language with optionals, bounds checking etc too. So if one is gonna bring those up as something in favor of functional programming they're not giving the full picture.
I think swift really found the sweet spot in this regard by not thinking about mutability but value/reference semantics.
I've found that in swift the things that should be values are and the things that should be references are, rather than taking an all or nothing approach.
Except in swift, a truly value-oriented thought process is hampered by its copy-on-write semantics, which are a far cry from immutable structures found in functional languages.
On the other hand, if your closure depends on global mutable state, than you have a piece of GLOBAL state that is VARIABLE. Sometimes known as the root of all evil.
But maybe I've been damaged/spoiled by scheme and/or not done enough concurrency programming to get your point.