Is the reason functional programming isn't more popular

TripDubs confirm

>>58178104
>TripDubs
Found the newfag.

Well, computers are essentially different at the lower level. They are von Neumann architectures with memory and registers, and they only perform operations on memory.
Based on this, the main reason is because C took over. We all know the history of UNIX and how it spread. The C way of doing things was the one that prevailed, while the culture of Lisp fucked up in several ways reducing it's marketability.

>>58178707
another related reason is that, since computers are so different, a direct mapping from the constructs in functional programming to the instructions in a machine is a bit hard to reach. In the past, the overhead caused by this translation was unwieldy, and people preferred to write directly for the machine.
Fast forward 20 or 30 years and you see that OSes evolved into this load of complexity, and hardware evolved into this ecosystem of different incompatible devices to do the same job (think vesa and intel drivers), often proprietary (think almost all wireless drivers or nvidia), and the monopoly of x86 for personal computing.
Put these all together and the idea of making an operating system that will work in every computer and have enough applications for the regular user is a humongous amount of work. People today expect their PC to run spreadsheets, desktop environments, graphics applications, web browsers, shitload of things. and again, most of the existing software is written in C or one of it's descendants.

So yeah, today C-likes have monopolized the industry, how often do you hear of a haskell or lisp application that is taken seriously? Even Emacs is written in C

>>58178235
>Projecting