Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Elm isn't FRP What do you mean? http://elm-lang.org/learn/What-is-FRP.elm
[deleted]
Further, given the lack of extant model, it's very silly to get pedantic over the term, and end up insisting on a meaning which has not been demonstrated to be practical and therefore one must consider the possibility will never turn out to be practical. It is not out of the question there exists some fundamental mathematical problem with the strict definition of FRP and therefore it must inevitably turn into a family of techniques.
This strikes me as sort of like insisting that you don't have OO unless you fully support access control via "private", six months before the first release of anything that actually supports "private", and all along it turns out that access control is fairly orthogonal to OO anyhow.
If I am out of date and somehow FRP has settled on a consistent model (without this fact being trumpeted on /r/haskell, where I would have heard about it), then it is, at the very least, still awfully young to be getting this pedantic about what is The One True Definition; it could only have been proved to be not immediately impractical, not yet proved practical.