(1) keeps cropping up but these new languages are hardly "FP" or even using "FP" features. I think we give FP research way too much credit. Pure functions? No,

(1) keeps cropping up but these new languages are hardly "FP" or even using "FP" features. I think we give FP research way too much credit. Pure functions? No, none of those languages can even express the concept except maybe C++ with the const keyword (which is as old as Haskell itself). Immutable data structures? Even very modern languages like Kotlin don't really have them. You can define a data structure where the fields are immutable after construction but it's not transitive. There are read only collections but not immutable collections, without doing extra work. Maybe immutable collections will turn up at some point, there's a proposal to add them, but it'll just be a library not a language feature. Type inference? New languages don't use full blown Hindley-Milner TI, they do much more limited TI that's designed to strike a balance between readable error messages, documented APIs, IDE performance and so on. Meanwhile the concept of TI is obvious and required no inspiration from anywhere - anyone who ever looked at source code will be struck by the repetition required. Generics? C++ templates started being discussed in 1985, and it's again a pretty obvious concept that would occur to anyone who wanted to offer type safe collections. I honestly can't see the huge impact FP supposedly had on mainstream programming. All the ideas its advocates try to claim for their own are either not used, or are obvious but usually not implemented the same way. My guess is if Haskell had never existed modern languages would look exactly the same.