It's a different perspective on what should be important with FRP. Similar to, say, Alan Kay's views on OOP in C++. (Similar because Conal was one of the origin

It's a different perspective on what should be important with FRP. Similar to, say, Alan Kay's views on OOP in C++. (Similar because Conal was one of the original creators of FRP and because, in both cases, I think their attempts to preserve the essence of their ideas are both valiant and worthy but likely to fail because of social dynamics.) Just like C++, Elm got the structure of FRP but sacrificed some of the essence at the altar of "worse is better" and an easier implementation. It's a strong statement coming from a strong philosophical position. It might be "poor phrasing" in terms of being impolitic or not entirely clear, but I don't know how to convey the same idea with the same strength differently. Just toning the sentiment down does not seem like an effective alternative.