I don't know why you're taking his post so literally. Forget about the 98 and 85 numbers. The point of the follow-up was to merely say that functional program

I don't know why you're taking his post so literally. Forget about the 98 and 85 numbers. The point of the follow-up was to merely say that functional programming works as long as you don't try to rigorously and dogmatically apply it to everything. There's a sweet spot where most of your code is functional but you also allow certain inconsistencies in, in order to make the whole system palatable. This was actually what he was trying to say in his first post, but he didn't really get it across clearly, hence, the follow-up.