Re: The importance and relevance of FP

[Julz]

> > Could you explain why Lisp isn't a FP language?
> 
> Well, the obvious arguments would be that
> 
> : functions, while pretty first class objects, reside in their own
> namespace, and need special operators.

> : iteration and side effects are not particularly discouraged, and is
> probably as common as recursion and purity in actual code.

Does that then not just make it a functional language that can be (and has
been) 'abused'?
People do tend to be lazy (as in water) and take the easiest path.
Not necessarily the 'right' one.

If something is used for a purpose that it was not originally intended
for, does that change _what_ it is?

I ask the question,  If Lisp is not a 'functional language', then what is
it?


Best Regards,

Julz.

--
Student, University of Otago, New Zealand.