3 ms·
> SML is kind of like the lisp of FP You don't consider lisp the lisp of FP?
by bgorman 7y ago
> SML is kind of like the lisp of FP
You don't consider lisp the lisp of FP?
- Tomte 7y agoMost Lisps (and certainly Common Lisp) have enabled a functional style, but were never particularly "pure". You have to squint a little bit and gloss over some parts to call them functional programming languages. Haskell is the poster child, but quite rich in syntax and concepts. So while I wouldn't really agree with grandparent, it's at least defensible to see Standard ML as a small core, a kernel of functional programming languages.
- wirrbel 7y agoI think here it is important to note, that the definition of Functional Programming is kind of fluid and has changed considerably over the decades. For a long time, there was no distinction between pure- and non-pure FP langauges and Lisp was certainly considered a FP lang. Yes, Lisps are typically not pure FP, but they are still FP (unless you define FP to mean pure FP, but that's kind of not in line with usage of the terms). That being said, much Lisp code (CL or Scheme alike) is probably as functional in style as Python code.