3 ms·
It doesn't matter if the language is multi-paradigm. The most influential programming style in Common Lisp is not FP and if you'll take a look at any CLisp book
by bad_user 9y ago
It doesn't matter if the language is multi-paradigm. The most influential programming style in Common Lisp is not FP and if you'll take a look at any CLisp book, you'll be hard pressed to find any FP in it.
LISP might have been born of Lambda Calculus, but Common Lisp is no longer based on it.
Scala might be multi paradigm, but is the only language on top of the JVM where pure FP programming is made possible by a pretty good and well maintained ecosystem of libraries, see for example: https://typelevel.org/ https://typelevel.org/
That is not true of Common Lisp.
- kazinator 9y agoLISP borrowed the "lambda" word from lambda calculus (not the Greek symbol). It didn't implement the lexical scope of lambda calculus, and provided lots of semantics other than lambda-calculus-like function application right off the bat. Let's see: lambda calculus has no representation of its own code; it is not code. In lambda calculus, there is no QUOTE. There is no CAR nor CDR to walk around the code, no EVAL. In lambda calculus, there is no mutation: no SETQ, no RPLACA. Pure lambda calculus has no terms other than functions (unless extended); LISP had symbols, numbers, conses right off the bat. Arrays and character strings came soon. All in all, equating Lisp with lambda calculus is silly.