I think Gilad is right to claim that FP is almost completely devoid of meaning as a technical term (though it's certainty a certain kind of movement and communi

I think Gilad is right to claim that FP is almost completely devoid of meaning as a technical term (though it's certainty a certain kind of movement and community). I think however after that point in his talk he becomes more obsessed with describing his own favorite OO language and ascribing its features to this term FP, that by his own hand is not considered terrifically material. He then finishes by scathing review of the things that a Haskell programmer would actually call novel and interesting. It's a very strange talk. I don't think more than 10% of it is content though.