11 ms·

I don't see much use in a definition of "functional language" that includes nearly every computer language. We already have a term for that.

• Avshalom 14y ago
  well it's primary use seems to be providing a moving goal post for the functional side during the occasional OO vs Functional skirmishes.
  • Evbn 14y ago
    That is required for parity with the OO side. Cf. Alan Kay on OO.
    • Avshalom 14y ago
      quite. Smalltalk is OO and Haskell is Functional are about the only (currently) accepted facts about the definitions of OO and Functional.
• markokocic 14y ago
  I agree that "nearly every computer language" can be considered functional, as "nearly every computer language" can be considered imperative. What I do not agree is when "functional programmers" claim that language is not "functional" just because it is not "pure functional" or Haskel alike.