Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

well it's primary use seems to be providing a moving goal post for the functional side during the occasional OO vs Functional skirmishes.

That is required for parity with the OO side. Cf. Alan Kay on OO.

quite. Smalltalk is OO and Haskell is Functional are about the only (currently) accepted facts about the definitions of OO and Functional.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com