> I think it’s more interesting to think of the GoF-language as mimicking HOFs with the strategy pattern facsimile. The strategy pattern reimplements HOFs as a code-level idiom.
Closures are implemented as objects under the skin, but that doesn't make them equivalent conceptually to me. I suppose it's down to syntax, after all if you ignore that you can have anything you like in assembler, but it won't feel very high level.
It's two schools of thought - everything is functions & data, or everything is objects & methods.