4 ms·

As jeremyjh already pointed out, this results in a pretty weak definition. You end up with JavaScript, Ruby, Python, and Objective-C all being lumped as "functi

As jeremyjh already pointed out, this results in a pretty weak definition. You end up with JavaScript, Ruby, Python, and Objective-C all being lumped as "functional languages", and if you squint a little bit, you can put Java in there too (anonymous inner classes). I think C, C++ and C# could be as well, but I don't know them well enough. So I don't think it's very productive to use a definition like this, but not because I want to be divisive, or "move the goal posts" or because I'm trying to be elitist here. It's because when a colleague asks you "what's functional programming?" I think it's much more helpful to describe the kind of programming that is encouraged in Haskell and Clojure than to just say, "well it's just map, filter, and fold in JavaScript".

Evbn 14y ago
Or we could be more precise and acknowledge there are several related features in the realm of "functional" and a language may have some but not all of them, and not make it into a fan club battle. Same goes for OO, which has something like 9 well-known defining features.
- spacemanaki 14y ago
  I don't think my comment was making anything into a "fan club battle". I was specifically advocating the kind of precision you describe, because I think calling any language with higher-order functions a "functional programming language" results in very muddy waters. The scenario I described wasn't hypothetical. When a colleague asked our whole office "what's functional programming?" I listened while someone told him that it was just map, filter, and fold. He'd used these in JavaScript already, and was prepared to accept that as an answer. I didn't think that was sufficient, so chimed in and offered some alternative features from other languages that I think are as important as higher order functions, mostly related to minimizing mutable state with managed references and persistent data structures. I think he appreciated my contribution, but I honestly don't know for sure. Maybe it just created more questions.

Evbn 14y ago

Or we could be more precise and acknowledge there are several related features in the realm of "functional" and a language may have some but not all of them, and not make it into a fan club battle. Same goes for OO, which has something like 9 well-known defining features.

spacemanaki 14y ago
I don't think my comment was making anything into a "fan club battle". I was specifically advocating the kind of precision you describe, because I think calling any language with higher-order functions a "functional programming language" results in very muddy waters. The scenario I described wasn't hypothetical. When a colleague asked our whole office "what's functional programming?" I listened while someone told him that it was just map, filter, and fold. He'd used these in JavaScript already, and was prepared to accept that as an answer. I didn't think that was sufficient, so chimed in and offered some alternative features from other languages that I think are as important as higher order functions, mostly related to minimizing mutable state with managed references and persistent data structures. I think he appreciated my contribution, but I honestly don't know for sure. Maybe it just created more questions.