It sure is easy moving the goalposts around when you have no grounds to base on. Please, please you have said this much and haven't still even once defined what true functional programming™ is?
> It's unfunctional by definition.
There you go, more self-fulfilling tautologies. And for some magical reason, it's me that are making nonsense claims? How is "higher-order functions make heavy use of closures" a nonsense claim?
I have provided a very clear and direct counter-example that falsifies your core argument. On the other hand, you have provided zero actual rebuttals. In case it isn't clear, calling mine "nonsense, circular and tautological" and yours "by definition" doesn't count as an argument.
> The pseudo-functional style is a preference for how to write programs, and therefore immediately defensible as valid
Is the word style even relevant here? You can call it style, paradigm, or computational model, it doesn't change your point.
> What's not defensible, though, is equivocating on the meaning of "function" while simultaneously trying to lump the pseudo-functional style in with FP.
Ugh, I'm guessing your definition of "function" is a special amorphous one that changes meaning to conveniently support your claims.
> The moment one starts making heavy use of closures and carrying around state is the moment one forfeits the right to be smug about how unclean OO is, given the equivalence of objects and closures and given that one is no longer actually practicing FP.
No, repeating your statements don't make them true. Once again, see my original counter-example with haskell. If you insist in ignoring it, then fine with me. I'm done here.
If I've moved the goalposts, you should be able to show where it happened. So do—point to it or fuck off.
As for the rest of your comment and being "done", that's fine. There's zero chance that I'm going to waste my time on a point-by-point rebuttal for anyone who's acting in this much bad faith, ignoring the points I've already made, and trying to pawn off the flaws in your arguments as mine.
> It's unfunctional by definition.
There you go, more self-fulfilling tautologies. And for some magical reason, it's me that are making nonsense claims? How is "higher-order functions make heavy use of closures" a nonsense claim?
I have provided a very clear and direct counter-example that falsifies your core argument. On the other hand, you have provided zero actual rebuttals. In case it isn't clear, calling mine "nonsense, circular and tautological" and yours "by definition" doesn't count as an argument.
> The pseudo-functional style is a preference for how to write programs, and therefore immediately defensible as valid
Is the word style even relevant here? You can call it style, paradigm, or computational model, it doesn't change your point.
> What's not defensible, though, is equivocating on the meaning of "function" while simultaneously trying to lump the pseudo-functional style in with FP.
Ugh, I'm guessing your definition of "function" is a special amorphous one that changes meaning to conveniently support your claims.
> The moment one starts making heavy use of closures and carrying around state is the moment one forfeits the right to be smug about how unclean OO is, given the equivalence of objects and closures and given that one is no longer actually practicing FP.
No, repeating your statements don't make them true. Once again, see my original counter-example with haskell. If you insist in ignoring it, then fine with me. I'm done here.