That's also Clojure's approach. It's very nice to program with immutable data at a high level, but for certain things, you just need to use the computer's primitives as they actually are, with all the mess that entails. So, I would say we need languages like C++ and Java (but perhaps we should all be using Rust, which makes the mess much more manageable, despite bringing in a lot of complexity that programmers need to wrap their head around, by for example, making it really easy to represent data, and defaulting to immutability) even if it would be "nice" to avoid them where possible.

Erlang and Elixir (and Clojure), however, lack a static type system, which makes it really difficult to use them at large scale (I am happy if you can provide convincing evidence to the contrary - I just haven't seen any). There's Gleam, which is a beautiful, simple language, that has a very good type system, but unfortunately, it's a bit too simple and makes certain things harder, like serialization (e.g. https://hexdocs.pm/gleam_codec/).

Haskell and Ocaml are more usable, but for some reason are extremely niche. I don't think there's any popular language that's in the "statically typed, functional" school, which I think shows that humans just don't prefer using them (they have been hyped for decades now, yet they just never stick). Perhaps a new generation of these languages will change things, like Unison for example (which stays away from Monads but provide an arguably superior abstraction, Abilities - also known as Effects). I think I would love for that to happen, though as I said before: sometimes you still need to reach out for bare metal performance and you have to use Rust/C++/D or even Java.

A lot of functional programming patterns have made their way into newer versions of C#. That obviously doesn't make it a functional language now, but it is also no longer just obviously procedural.

Scala might be one of the earliest languages that set out to combine FP with (mutable) OOP, so it probably worth a mention here.