[coldtea]

Which is mostly what used to be, 10 years ago. Closures, map, fold, etc. Before Haskell and Clojure like immutability and extra trimmings became fashionable...

In 1995 or even 2000 era LISP discussions you rarely if ever see those other concerns about FP that hipster functional programmers bring forward today.

(I guess it's also something that was helped by Moore's Law style speed development slowing down and the advancements in multicores...)

[pjmlp]

Quite right, back on those days FP was Smalltalk (yes really), Scheme, Common Lisp, Emacs Lisp, Caml Light (no OCaml yet), Standard ML and Miranda (no Haskell yet).

Which like you mention is where I point those hipsters to.

Then again, all new generations think they know best.

[pron]

FP doesn't even have a definition (though pure-FP does, but it, too, can be a bit ambiguous and depends on how you define effects). FP is mostly accepted to be those patterns practiced by people in the FP community. I heard someone deeply involved with FP say, "FP is more a community than a well-defined programming style".

[lmm]

Language evolves; "FP" today means something different from what it meant 10 years ago. There's no need for dismissiveness in either direction.