[bmitc]

I guess I was confused, and still am, about what the point is here.

> You haven't understand what functional programming is.

I almost exclusively use functional languages, so I'm not sure about that.

> I was ranting a bit that the term "functional" is nowadays so unclear that there is little benefit in knowing that a language is "functional".

I'm actually not sure that is a problem. Any examples? And it's quite common to describe something as "functional-first" if it has a functional core but allows other paradigms such as imperative or OOP, such as OCaml.

And a lot of this is based upon the semantics and definitions of the words like "pure", "functional", etc. which are more like spectrums than binary.

[valenterry]

Yeah, you hit the nail on the head. ;)

> definitions of the words like "pure", "functional", etc. which are more like spectrums than binary.

That's exactly it. "functional programming" originally was not a spectrum. It was well defined. Functions meant "pure functions" or (which is the same) "mathematical functions" in that context. And they still do when people use the term "functional programming" in the original meaning. Though nowadays, I rather use "pure functional programming" since "functional programming" was taken over. ;-)

So on the other hand, can you provide a precise and meaningful definition for "functional" from your own perspective?