> Why can't other modes of thinking coexist with your view? FP is OK, so is OOP, so is imperative, low-level machine code, "loop programs" (see Dennis Ritchie dissertation), logic programming etc. I like them all but hate it when somebody tries to push me one way telling me all other ways are wrong.
Why do you think GP is saying or doing that? I think you've put a lot of words into their mouth that aren't there, and then got yourself worked up about it, enough to accuse them of ignorance and small-mindedness (at best).
I see absolutely nothing in their comment that even weighs in favor of FP, let alone saying other modes of thinking can't coexist. For all we know GP is a rabid OOP fan but sees the value in immutability (which FP certainly does not have a monopoly on).
OK, my apologies, that comes as a baggage from previous discussions with FP experts that routinely dismissed any opposing ideas and the OP's answer struck the same chord.
Why do you think GP is saying or doing that? I think you've put a lot of words into their mouth that aren't there, and then got yourself worked up about it, enough to accuse them of ignorance and small-mindedness (at best).
I see absolutely nothing in their comment that even weighs in favor of FP, let alone saying other modes of thinking can't coexist. For all we know GP is a rabid OOP fan but sees the value in immutability (which FP certainly does not have a monopoly on).