someguyperson

The difference between RG and songmeanings, and really any other lyrics website in existence, is the quality of the annotations. My habit of listening to rap has changed quite dramatically since I have discovered RG - I don't have to speculate about what a line might mean, because now there's a whole community of people who love rap collate their collective wisdom and tell you what it means. The verified annotations are also amazing...I mean seriously, what other site has artists themselves explaining what they meant for their own songs? I think the $15 million can be justified if you look at their long-term plans. They've built a model with rap and now they're expanding onto rock, pop and poetry. I see it this way: the sell for RG is for their whole slew of websites to become the wikipedia for literary/artistic interpretation, a position they have already locked down with rap. Whether that is worth $15 million is of course up to you, but it looks like it was worth it to some big name investors.

I think in reality the appeal of FP is that the people who use it are generally more experienced programmers

I would wager that FP is used more in universities than in any other setting, and by underclassmen, not just graduate students. So I don't exactly think this is true.

As others have said, immutability and referential transparency enable you to reason about your programs much more cleanly that you are generally able to in imperative code. Functional programming also forces you to think about problems in a recursive manner, which is inherently very valuable, as the idea of solving problems by recursion is extremely powerful. Take a simple problem like this: given k different denominations of coins, how many ways can you make change for n dollars? (This is a problem from SICP, which also seems to come up on HN a lot). The functional code for this is about 10 lines. I don't even know how you would solve this imperatively...

You may look at this example and think it's contrived, that "real world problems" aren't anything like counting ways to make change. But just because you haven't encountered it in your daily work doesn't mean that other people haven't, or that it's not valuable as a tool in itself. And ultimately, having conceptual tools for thinking about problems is always going to be a good thing.

Btw, I find it slightly amusing that you don't want "to write programs like I'm writing on a Turing machine" since imperative programming maps pretty directly onto TMs as a model of computation...but I digress :)