There’s an interesting problem with “practical” functional languages that we don’t really know what a crappy enterprise F# / OCaml / Haskell codebase looks like - though maybe Haskell is sufficiently popular in crypto these days that there’s some examples. But generally software in these languages is written by highly motivated developers with a lot of flexibility. OTOH a lot of bad C# and Java is written by developers with bad technical management who treats devs as code monkeys. Further a lot of the “technical enablers” of bad C#/Java are bespoke enterprise frameworks that simply don’t exist for functional languages. But in principle, enterprise Haskell could be quite vulnerable to a “productivity-boosting” language extension that locks older Haskell codebases into horrible typeclass golf.

I say all this as someone who loves F# and would only take a C# job if I needed the money. But certainly a lot of the enterprise antipatterns can be clumsily implemented in F#, while a well-written C# codebase is usually pleasant and productive. In particular F# doesn’t totally escape problems like “the Nuget service locator is overengineered for our needs, but we are on a deadline and an excessive abstraction is better than hard-wiring everything.”

My hypothesis is that F# is somewhat self selecting at senior/lead dev's who would have a lot of choice in the language that they get to choose not the army of "code monkey's" as you call them. Generally this would mean higher code quality on average.