Seems like everyone misreading the intent of the post. He is NOT advocating inlining code in this post. He is suggesting that FP is better at solving the same p

Seems like everyone misreading the intent of the post. He is NOT advocating inlining code in this post. He is suggesting that FP is better at solving the same problems in a more sensible way. The email was written in 2007. In there, he advocates the inlining of single-use functions into god functions as it reduces the risk of these functions being opted into other routines, especially when they all deal with shared mutable data. Single-use functions are explicitly singled out in his email; he mentions that he does not encourage duplicating code to avoid functions. | "In almost all cases, code duplication is a greater evil than whatever second order problems arise from functions being called in different circumstances, so I would rarely advocate duplicating code to avoid a function" The blurb at the front indicates the intent of his post. Since then he has favoured a functional-programming approach - don't inline your functions, but avoid making your functions rely on mutable/larger scope states. Pass in everything that is needed by the function through parameters. Avoid functions with side-effects, encourage idempotence. That way, reusing the function does not lead to unintentional side-effects. He also mentions that should you still decide to inline, " you should be made constantly aware of the full horror of what you are doing.". A lot of things change within a decade. =)