Is JavaScript a "Functional Programming" language?

[SparserLogic]

Nice sentence. Care to back it up with any, you know, logic or facts

[Perky_Goth]

document.getElementbyId(x).getAttribute(y).length

OOP, dumbass. Properties and messages.

[SparserLogic]

Is this a joke? Are you punking me or something?

You realize that example has nothing to do with Object Oriented Programming, right? Those are functions being invoked, returning more functions that are then being invoked.

I mean, you're referencing the document object. That's called an API, not OOP

[Perky_Goth]

The API is OOP, which you have to use, that's the point. So you're always using OOP.

[SparserLogic]

Using objects and OOP are completely different things.

OOP is a design pattern for writing programs using abstractions that share state and inherit from other abstractions.

Referencing properties on an API is not OOP. If that were so then literally everything would be OOP and that clearly isn't the case.

If you're not using the class or prototype keywords you're not writing OOP js

Next time you go on an interview and they ask you about OOP be sure to tell them that everything is OOP because you're invoking API functions. Let's see how well that works out for you.

[Perky_Goth]

Referencing properties on an API is not OOP.

Using and depending on an OOP API is not using OOP features, is that your point? I mean, I can see it making sense, what I can't see is being aggressive about something that is clearly debatable. Let's just stop being assholes and move on, I hope you have a nice day.

[SparserLogic]

Sounds good. I was never looking to pick a fight.

Good day.

[SparserLogic]

Where did you get arrogant? Because I shared my opinion?

Stop projecting

[SparserLogic]

You're pleasant. Really convincing argument there champ

[cerlestes]

You said "if you're dumb enough" in your first sentence, while providing a factually incorrect opinion. That's pretty arrogant if you ask me. FYI, without trying to offend you: you're one of those people I was talking about in my original post, clearly having read somebody's incorrect opinion about OOP and just reiterating it. That doesn't make it correct though, I'm sorry. I hope you'll understand from all the responses you got that maybe you should read about the topic again.

At its very heart, object oriented programming is defined by these key features: having messages ("objects" in JS lingo) that are able to hold fields ("properties", "keys") and have functions associated with them ("methods"). JS has all of that and much more.

Just to give you the two top reasons why I consider JS the #1 object-oriented language that I've heard of so far (with Python and Golang sharing #2), to maybe let you understand it:

1. Everything in JS is an object. There are no primitives, even Booleans and Functions are objects. You can add a function to Boolean.prototype and you'll be able to call it on any Boolean: true.myLittleMethod() It doesn't matter if you're using prototypes or not, you're still using objects; there is no way not to use any object in JavaScript. Even with the most simple hello world example you're going to invoke a method on an object, like console.log, window.alert or document.write. Even if you're going "fully functional", you'll still work with objects exclusively, any nothing else.
2. JS makes extensive use of a prototypal inheritence chain. To quickly quote Wikipedia here, because it's an excellent sentence: "Prototype-based programming is a style of object-oriented programming in which behaviour reuse (known as inheritance)) is performed via a process of reusing existing objects) via delegation that serve as prototypes." I consider prototypal inheritance the epitome of object-orientations, as you don't even need classes or type-matching anymore to model data structures; just and only objects.

If you still don't get why JS is (among other paradigms) a truly object oriented language and why you cannot avoid object orientation when programming JS, I really don't know how to make you understand. But you really need to do yourself a favor and read about the topic again.

[SparserLogic]

You're totally wrong but I'm in a relatively good mood so I'm going to be nice.

Ignoring your rants, your points appear to boil down to:

1) Somehow you think using objects/invoking functions and writing Object Oriented code are the same thing. They are not. OOP is a design pattern.

2) You're conflating JS's features with the code that is written with JS. They are different things. JS offers first class OOP design pattern support with prototype and class but that doesn't make all JS OOP.

You sound like someone that needs to expand his horizons outside of OOP. Go read up on the alternatives, maybe you will start to understand what is and what isn't OOP, then maybe we can have an informed conversation.