[bumeye]

I think the author means to say that it's kind of an all or nothing thing. You either go purely functional and get all the benefits, or you don't and barely get any benefits at all.

You could say that "almost functional" does not really exist, just like "almost secure" does not exist.

And yes, you can still program with a non-functional language just fine he does not refute that.

[coldtea]

>I think the author means to say that it's kind of an all or nothing thing. You either go purely functional and get all the benefits, or you don't and barely get any benefits at all.

Yes. And what I say is that "I get enough benefits from going halfway functional, thank you very much".

>You could say that "almost functional" does not really exist, just like "almost secure" does not exist.

You could say that but you would be wrong. Most Lisp coders for example have also used imperative code where they need it, with side effects and all. Nobody cared much about such total "functionalness" and purity as you get today from Haskell programmers (most of them non professional of course since there are far more Haskell programmers than Haskell jobs) and the like...

[ksherlock]

ahem pure lazy functional. One could read the article and walk away believing that laziness is the problem.