Julz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > > 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'?
Why abused? Why should the "pure" functional way the best for
programming? Couldn't it be that a language which supports other
features besides functionl elements.
> People do tend to be lazy (as in water) and take the easiest path.
> Not necessarily the 'right' one.
What's the "right" way. I hardly believe something simular will exist.
> I ask the question, If Lisp is not a 'functional language', then what is
> it?
I would think Lisp among other things is a functional language.
Regards
Friedrich
--
for e-mail reply remove all after .com
