[itsbruce]

There's more to the admittedly fuzzy-edged concept of functional programming than function application.

I'd agree with you that the feature list is more important than a vaguer title. That's something Robet Harper talks about: http://www.cambridgeblog.org/2017/05/what-if-anything-is-a-p...

But the selection of features has limited value if the selection isn't coherent and the features don't compose. Within both FP and OOP there are languages whose design choices represent coherent choices with synergy... and ones that don't.

Go's feature set doesn't provide that coherence and synergy for functional abstractions. Frankly, it's an awkward obstacle in that direction. Beyond that, its feature set is deliberately designed to place arbitrary limits on abstraction.

[n4r9]

Thanks, this is a measured response that's made me think a little deeper and refine my opinions.