[bradrn]

> Many programs in these languages look significantly different than just statements and procedures.

Like I said, they’ve certainly adopted features from other paradigms… but the basic, underlying structure of programs in these languages is still statements, sequenced one after another. It’s not like Haskell or Scheme where nearly every operation is ultimately done through function calls. And it’s certainly not ‘post-paradigm’ as the article claims.

> Moreover, all three languages support structural pattern matching (borrowed from functional programming) as a core control-structure.

As for this: people often associate functional programming with pattern-matching, but I’ve never really understood why. The only relationship is that it originated in the ML language family, which also happens to be functional. There’s many functional languages which lack pattern-matching (e.g. most Lisps), and there’s many non-functional languages which have it (Java, C#, Python).

[lispm]

I would think pattern matching as coming from string processing (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COMIT , SNOBOL, ...) and pattern-directed programming coming from rule-based & logic programming (PLANNER, Prolog, ...).

[agumonkey]

Bro, Java and python just got it. Lisps don't include it because it's just another lib/extension. Even emacs had one (see the recent pcase lawn article)