3 ms·
> Neither Schema nor Lisp nor any but a very few quite obscure languages satisfy this. That doesn't seem like it would be a very useful definition then.
by GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> Neither Schema nor Lisp nor any but a very few quite obscure languages satisfy this.
That doesn't seem like it would be a very useful definition then.
- justin_vanw 10y agoHaskell, Ocaml, etc. There's nothing at all functional about Common Lisp, not even a little bit, far from it, if anything the opposite.
- lispm 10y agoWhich is nonsense. Common Lisp and its implementations supports some parts of Functional Programming: * First Class Functions * Higher Order Functions * Anonymous Functions * Lexical Binding * Closures * TCO is supported by a variety of implementations