3 ms·
From what I've seen this role is now played as much, if not more, by languages like Scala and Haskell. Certainly languages like that owe a large debt to Lisp bu
by cageface 15y ago
From what I've seen this role is now played as much, if not more, by languages like Scala and Haskell. Certainly languages like that owe a large debt to Lisp but I'm not so sure what you say is as true of Lisp today as it once was.
- thesz 15y agoI agree and should note that pure functional languages more suited for writing libraries than languages with some first-class functional features. This is so because pureness encourages composability of various parts of program. The state allows parts of program to communicate through implicit information channel. One part of program could signal another to increment a variable by deleting a file. Or vice versa. That's why I think Haskell is the best for libraries, Scala less so and Lisp even lesser, even taking into account macro system, code-as-data, etc.