> The concept of pure functions is at the core of FP. Only in the subset that you consider canon, not generically for all FP. Wikipedia is quite authoritative,

> The concept of pure functions is at the core of FP. Only in the subset that you consider canon, not generically for all FP. Wikipedia is quite authoritative, FWIW. I agree that the React team has made some flat out wrong claims (e.g. incorrectly calling hooks pure at one point), but you're engaging in exactly the same sort of "marketing" you dislike, by biasedly claiming your specific flavor of FP is the "real deal", when in reality there are many different cohorts within the larger FP community that prioritize different things. If I had to criticize your purity-centric flavor, I'd say it's very reminiscent of the height of the OOP craze, with algebraic terminology elitism being similar to the one surrounding GoF pattern terminology. Also similar are the grandiose theories of maintainability, and the dichotomy between what loudmouths preach and what code in the wild looks like. People log things from .map callbacks. They don't grok monads. It seems entirely arbitrary to me to deny the functionalness of some code based on some technicality (case in point, do you avoid promises and do you Object.freeze(Object.create(o)) all your objects?) IMHO, there's no point defending some notion of an FP brand. Looking around this thread, you can see that people already view React's hot take on FP as problematic. Same goes for general perception of the more elitist corners of the FP community.