>My whole point - the one I've been trying to make in every comment in this thread - is that if you want to talk about "FP" as a whole (or "OOP" as a whole), you have to explicitly define it. Relying on intuition or culture is not enough.

I am aware this is your point. I understand your point. I don't know about you, but I find a conversation of your definition of a term vs. my definition of a term to be uninteresting. Arguing about semantics doesn't matter in my opinion.

>You define "FP" to be (what I claim is) a way that's too narrow. Your splitting the design space into different paradigms is (I claim) not substantiated.

>So I agree with many of the points you make in the links about how composition works in (what you think of as) FP vs OOP. But I view that as claims about individual design patterns or language features (and very big, fundamental design patterns / language features), not as things called "FP" and "OOP".

Your own statements show that you have already derived from my writing what you think I define as FP and OOP. You also implied something about what you believe I defined as "design" saying that I splitted it into "spaces" of different paradigms.

So why is there a need for me to explicitly define a definition for you when you already derived it from my writing? Is this your whole point? That your definition of OOP, FP and design is different from my definition but you understand what I'm talking about? Or is there another point you're trying to make?

Just to refocus: The topic of our thread is basically the rationale behind why I draw the line at function composition as the main point of FP. Given my definitions of OOP, FP and Design, do you understand why I have this rationale? And if you understand my rationale do you agree with it or disagree?