[trashburger]

You're wrong. The prototypical model of JS was inspired by the Self programming language[0], itself a descendant of Smalltalk. It is a very crude implementation for sure, but it is object programming nevertheless. Closures being present sours the purity a bit, but closures are poor man's objects[1] anyway.

[0]: https://selflanguage.org/

[1]: https://stackoverflow.com/a/11421598

[thesecretsquad]

Also, Smalltalk was heavily inspired by LISP[0]. The line between functional and object-oriented is quite blurry. Especially in a pure OO language like Smalltalk. The dynamic and prototypical model of JS is definitely another example of the subtle harmony of functional and OO.

[0]: https://worrydream.com/EarlyHistoryOfSmalltalk/

[trashburger]

I agree 100%. I firmly hold the belief that the two paradigms are just different perspectives of looking at the same thing (state and behavior). Also see https://insearchofsecrets.com/2014/08/04/lisp-smalltalk-and-...