[bigfishrunning]

There's some muddiness in the terminology here -- OOP is really a design style, and "OOP languages" are generally imperative languages that have sematics that encourage OOP design. It is very possible, even encouraged, to represent state as "Objects" in many functional languages; it's just not really enforced by the language itself.

A good example of this are the object systems in Scheme and Common Lisp (which are less strictly Functional (note the capital F in that word) then something like Haskell).

[ruszki]

I asked mainly because of the terminology. I read the primer of how to code OOP in plain C about a decade ago, so I knew that the paradigm definitely can be applied to “non OOP languages”, but I wasn’t sure whether the term “functional programming” allows this or not for some obscure academic reasons. How I coded when I encountered Haskell the first time, I would say it’s definitely possible, but I think, there are some features in Haskell which can be used to break pure functional programming, and if those are not considered FP, then who knows. But I used Haskell the last time a few years ago, so my memory is definitely not clear.