Interestingly, that is exactly what I see in the current generation of FP hypsters. Grandiose claims based on very limited experience. Aka: know so little, assume so much.
But don't worry, it happens to the best. My favorite is still the Simon Peyton-Jones talk on Data Parallel Haskell, where he can't help himself, but just has to make the snide comment "this is only possible in a language like Haskell". Hand raised in the auditorium: The HPC community has been doing this for years. In FORTRAN. But carry on...
(And of course, the results are dismal: 6 cores required to match sequential C! Considering that this sort of concurrency [there are others] is exclusively for better performance, that is a damning result).
Despite these, er, issues, it is an absolutely fascinating talk, and the techniques look quite worthwhile. After all, they've been in use in the HPC community for some time :-)
He's also (at least partly) wrong, and so are you. FP has it's place. But what people like you and nbevans never seem to realize is that the rest of the programming world is neither stupid nor ignorant. Yes, there are better ways of working than the ways that we work. Yes, we don't know all of those ways, even though some people do. But that's true for you, too. There are people who are ignorant about FP. There are also people who are both smarter than you and more experienced than you, who do not use FP for good reasons. But you and nbevans arrogantly tell us that once we learn enough, we'll see that you're right. Your inexcusable assumption that everyone who disagrees with you has to be both wrong and ignorant is why you're getting downvoted.
I still use OOP just not as much as I have another tool in the box (FP) that is sometimes (often?) more appropriate.
