3 ms·
But if you look at the history of the term, the Lisp or APL families of languages have just as much of a right to claim "functional programming" as their own as
by platinumrad 9y ago
But if you look at the history of the term, the Lisp or APL families of languages have just as much of a right to claim "functional programming" as their own as the ML family. I say this as someone who really likes OCaml and has never gotten along very well with Lisp.
Also I don't see how Go can be considered actively "anti-FP" when it supports passing closures as arguments, which many, many languages do not. I don't understand why (some) FP and Go partisans feel such a need to see one another as enemies.
- catnaroek 9y agoClosures are simply an implementation detail of first-class procedures. But functional programming, unlike object-oriented programming, isn't just about making procedures first-class. It's about using, to the greatest extent possible, procedures that evaluate functions.
- platinumrad 9y agoYes, I understand that having closures does not mean that a language supports functional programming. What I am taking issue with is the idea that Go is somehow especially "anti-FP" when an enormous number of languages have even fewer core functional programming features.