> The point is that I can use Scala as an OOPL without ever dabbling very much in functional programming (beyond as much as I do in C#). So a language is autom

> The point is that I can use Scala as an OOPL without ever dabbling very much in functional programming (beyond as much as I do in C#). So a language is automatically not functional, because other supported paradigms in that language don't suck? So if OO in OCaml, F# wouldn't suck, they wouldn't be functional either? > C# has first class functions and has had them for a long time. I'd say C#'s functions are slightly better than Java's. The distinction between Action and Func is a terrible hack, and both of them are just a thin syntactic layer over delegates. Is that really first-class? They don't even provide function composition in the standard library. > Generics in C# are also reified, vs. erasure in Scala, so your run-time and static type system is the same. Bad luck for F#, I guess. Just ask them how much fun it is having to support two different kinds of Generics. > Scala has [...] As mentioned, that list wasn't a claim that Scala supports all of them (I think not even Haskell gets all the points).