Yes, I forgot "logic", but this raises a good point.   I brushed by what I 
really meant, which is not that the Squeak language is a dynamic functional 
object-oriented language, but rather that the Squeak environment supports 
dynamic OO, functional, yes logic, and probably statically typed OO 
languages.   Is a Closure part of the language or the environment?

I would like the original poster to challenge his functional friends to 
write a Haskell or Ocaml compiler in Squeak, a la the Prolog compiler that 
exists somewhere on the net (SqueakSource?).   They can specify a Class 
which uses the Ocaml compiler and compile the methods as functions - or 
whatever works best.   Perfectly doable, I surmise.

As Alejandro is saying, paraphrasing, it is all about the environment, not 
the language.

Cheers,
Rob

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Michael Haupt" <mhaupt at gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2010 9:27 AM
To: "The general-purpose Squeak developers list" 
<squeak-dev at lists.squeakfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [squeak-dev] Smalltalk and functional programming

> Rob,
>
> On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 3:19 PM, Rob Withers <reefedjib at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Smalltalk is a dynamic fuctional object-oriented language.
>
> you forgot "imperative" and, hey, since you can implement Prolog in
> it, "logic". ;-) Sorry for the sarcasm, but Turing completeness just
> bites. (Yes, it's a bottom argument, but this kind of question just
> calls for it.)
>
> If someone'd ask me, I'd respond that Smalltalk is IMHO not a
> functional language. What is the primary means of abstraction at work
> in Smalltalk? Not functions, right?
>
> The other way around, would you agree that, uh, Haskell is an
> object-oriented language because you can somehow emulate objects and
> state using monads?
>
> Best,
>
> Michael
>
>