Hacker News Reader

> he's moved on from inlining and now does pure functional programming

Neither of those are true. He does more FP ”where reasonable“, and that decreases the need for inlining. He does not do pure FP, and he still inlines.

View on HN

"pure FP" does not mean only writing in a functional style. Purity refers to referential transparency, ie., functions do not depend on or modify some global state.

I know what purity is. It is a core principle of functional programing. So ”functional“ already implies purity, and ”pure functional“ implies exclusively functional (e.g. Haskell).

Purity is not a requirement for functional languages. See Ocaml, Erlang, Racket, Scala, Clojure, Common Lisp, etc.

Actually even further: They also don't modify/mutate any arguments. If they did, then that could raise problems with concurrency.

He literally says he’s more bullish on pure fp. Read it. And I also wrote about where he still inlines.

Exactly. More bullish means he uses and advocates for functional more than before. It by no means implies having ”moved on“ from inlining.

He has Moved on in general and his intro comments on how he still uses inlining for special cases.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com