The reason why you see this pattern is not because in functional programming vs. OOP, functional losses.
The reason for this pattern is because companies look for easily replaceable developers.
To get into functional you need to be good at abstracting the business domain, this requires seniority which is hard to find. Most of the time, when you are working using functional programming you are implementing the business vocabulary. Entry level developers are not good/interested in this. Their worries are in how they can use Angular 2 in this project, or why we need to still use SQL Server instead of converting to {insert the newest database technology}.
It is easy to find (and replace) junior developers that are happy because they created something with the latest technology and it provides the immediate value intended. It sounds good, but it misses the point.
Software development in a company happens to support/enhance the business. This means that it has to stand the test of time, not only in reliability but also in adaptability. The only constant in software is that it will change. Here is where building a vocabulary that represents the business subjects pays off. Change now is a definition-change and, unless the business is pivoting, definitions rarely change; instead, they have constant adjustments. Functional shines in creating a vocabulary and having this adaptability.
Of course, you can adapt using OOP, but the question is not if adaptability is possible, it is instead how to make changes at the lowest risk.
The reason for this pattern is because companies look for easily replaceable developers.
To get into functional you need to be good at abstracting the business domain, this requires seniority which is hard to find. Most of the time, when you are working using functional programming you are implementing the business vocabulary. Entry level developers are not good/interested in this. Their worries are in how they can use Angular 2 in this project, or why we need to still use SQL Server instead of converting to {insert the newest database technology}.
It is easy to find (and replace) junior developers that are happy because they created something with the latest technology and it provides the immediate value intended. It sounds good, but it misses the point.
Software development in a company happens to support/enhance the business. This means that it has to stand the test of time, not only in reliability but also in adaptability. The only constant in software is that it will change. Here is where building a vocabulary that represents the business subjects pays off. Change now is a definition-change and, unless the business is pivoting, definitions rarely change; instead, they have constant adjustments. Functional shines in creating a vocabulary and having this adaptability.
Of course, you can adapt using OOP, but the question is not if adaptability is possible, it is instead how to make changes at the lowest risk.