> That is how those languages describe themselves and it’s what they look like Neither Red [1] nor Rebol [2] actually does that; the Rebol family of languages

> That is how those languages describe themselves and it’s what they look like Neither Red [1] nor Rebol [2] actually does that; the Rebol family of languages tends to describe itself as paradigm-neutral or multi-paradigm, but historically stays close to imperative constructs and lacks mainstream FP support (e.g. Red doesn't have closures, currying, and tail-call optimization). If you really look at a generic Rebol code it will look like an Algol 60 ocean with occasional DSL islands floating around. Each time I ask what "functional imperative" buzzword actually means no one can give me a straight answer. If it means "building imperative constructs on top of recursive functions via macros" [3], then it describes something totally remote from Rebol. Care to elaborate? [1]: https://www.red-lang.org/p/about.html https://www.red-lang.org/p/about.html [2]: http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-1.html http://www.rebol.com/docs/core23/rebolcore-1.html [3]: https://bitwalker.org/posts/2018-03-18-functional-imperative-programming-with-elixir/ https://bitwalker.org/posts/2018-03-18-functional-imperative...