i intended to put "(and vice versa)" in a footnote, but forgot about it! you can see a relic of that in the last paragraph.
though i must say, i'm pretty happy in languages that have closures but don't have objects, as long as there's a nice way to do ad-hoc polymorphism (like traits/typeclasses)
Objects are a poor man's closures. And closures are a poor man's objects.
Modern languages have both. And they serve different purposes.