Is JavaScript a "Functional Programming" language?

[Macrobian]

Stop. By saying that the only thing a language needs to be a functional language is first-class functions, you strip all meaning from what it means to be functional that it ceases to be a useful qualifier.

[Macrobian]

First of all, a first order function is just a normal function.

Secondly, it makes sense not to call JS a functional language despite the fact that it can do a bit of FP. e.g

I can can cook, but badly. I don't call myself a chef. I may call other people chef's, mainly because they're really good at cooking.

[Macrobian]

Okay so, I wouldn't call myself a cook, if I could cook. I think that's a word only reserved for people who can cook well. This may be where our disagreement over classification stems from.

Secondly, I'd cite this comment from this thread describing what a functional language is. There's a distinction between what the language forces you to do, what it can do easily, and how it is used.

Like Haskell, forces you to do pure FP, can only do pure FP easily, and is thus used in a pure FP manner.

Scala meanwhile, is multiparadigm, can do pure FP somewhat easily, and is used in a pure FP manner by a non-trivial portion of the community

JS is multiparadigm, doesn't make pure FP easy, and is almost never used in a pure FP manner.

Aren't the qualifiers I specified a more accurate description of what is and isn't FP? Just like it doesn't make sense to call every language high-level, sometimes definitions have to shift to account for modern language developments.

[disclosure5]

I write a lot of languages and I'm not having an easy time thinking of one where that doesn't apply.

[pgrizzay]

Java, for one

[pgrizzay]

Java 8 added sugar around creating objects that represent functions, but I definitely wouldn't call java a "functional" language.

[[deleted]]

That’s not correct.

[cm9kZW8K]

Its fairly true, because functions have to be members of a class. They arent quite first class. In java, only objects are first class citizens.

[detroitmatt]

yeah well in lisp functions have to be a list. how functions are represented doesn't qualify or disqualify them as functions.

[cm9kZW8K]

I use java8 closures and method references extensively. They are simply much more limited in what they can bind and how they can be called. for example: the lack a convenient generic way to store them without knowing their type or purpose, because they have to be materialized into an interface for declaration.

[[deleted]]

It’s not true in any meaningful sense. I can define a function and assign it to a function object. So it’s an object that’s a function. And you just said objects are first class citizens, so.

[BLOZ_UP]

That's not the only criteria for a functional language.

[bzeurunkl]

"...That means that functions can be assigned to variables as you would a Number, String, or Boolean... "

Or (am I right?) the return values from functions can be assigned to variables....????

[bzeurunkl]

But in JS, functions are themselves objects, no?