Lisp was never "pure", but yes, there's definitely been a shift in the meaning of the term "functional language". Which makes sense: the things that made Lisp m

Lisp was never "pure", but yes, there's definitely been a shift in the meaning of the term "functional language". Which makes sense: the things that made Lisp more "functional" or better suited to the functional style have almost universally adopted by other languages. There's nothing particularly functional about it anymore. Lisp has always been deeply multiparadigm, even if it was the harbinger of FP. It's had support for mutation and OOP since the 70s. If you wanted to (although most Lispers wouldn't), you could view that support as an escape hatch for when the functional paradigm, as expressed in Lisp, was inappropriate or insufficient to solve a problem. It's natural, then, that languages that have taken the functional paradigm and insisted on it, run further with it, are now the ones that are particularly functional. It's how language naturally evolves in cases like this; similar things can be seen with the term "artificial intelligence".