> Why is this taken as a given to be a good thing?
It is not taken as a given at all. It is an acknowledgment that it makes perfect sense to build on top of centuries of work and theory on well-behaved tools, rather than reinventing the wheel with ill-behaved tools.
It's honestly wild to see this even being argued about in 2024. Ten years ago, I remember the discussions around FP being universally "yes of course it's better, but what's the best way to make it practical in the real world where you need side effects".
It is not taken as a given at all. It is an acknowledgment that it makes perfect sense to build on top of centuries of work and theory on well-behaved tools, rather than reinventing the wheel with ill-behaved tools.