[agumonkey]

to add a grain of salt, some of the lisp world is not functional, a lot of code is straight up imperative / destructive. but then yeah a lot of the lisp culture tended to applicative idioms and function oriented, even without the static explicit generic type system of haskell.

[jghn]

Sure, but that's part of my point in agreeing that definitions of "functional programming" are muddy at best. If one were to go back to say 1990 and poll people to name the first "functional programming" language that comes to mind, I'd wager nearly all of them would say something like LISP or Scheme. It really wasn't until the late aughts/early teens when that started to shift.

[agumonkey]

Yeah sorry i wasn't bringing much by commenting this above. And yeah lisp was the historical soil for FP (schemers took the lead on this).

[jghn]

No I think your point is good, it just wasn't contradictory and I think that was your intent. Defining FP is a dark art :)

[agumonkey]

maybe FP should be explained as `rules not values`. in scheme it's common to negate the function to be applied, or curry some expression or partially compose / thread rules/logic to get a potential future value that did nothing yet

[jghn]

I like it. I think I said this in a separate post in here but I've taken to breaking it down to different archetypes and discussing them separately.