3 ms·
It also isn't one when "looking at it with the eyes of CS knowledge", given that Common Lisp has very powerful support for OO and procedural programming out of
by ludston 2y ago
It also isn't one when "looking at it with the eyes of CS knowledge", given that Common Lisp has very powerful support for OO and procedural programming out of the box, and in order to most effectively use an FP style it's necessary to rely on community developed libraries...
- pjmlp 2y agoWhat FP style? Haskell style, I guess. When I learnt Lisp, Lisp and Scheme were FP, Miranda was still around, and Caml Light had just started being known outside INRIA. I really dislike revisionism regarding what it means to be FP.
- veqq 2y agoThe issue's that Schemes (and Clojure) are way more functional than Common Lisp and e.g. `funcall` feels like a kludge compared to lisp-1. If you read the old CL codebases or modern code, destructive and imperative use are common, so it doesn't feel terribly revisionist (just compared to pascal, c, bliss etc.).
- andsoitis 2y agoWikipedia page for “functional programming”: ”The first high-level functional programming language, Lisp, was developed in the late 1950s…” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Functional_programming
- ludston 2y agoCommon Lisp has Lisp in the name, but it is not the same thing. We're talking about languages developed 30 years apart here. In the 80s, things like immutability just weren't pragmatic due to memory constraints, and CL was designed with pragmatism in mind. Scheme could be argued as FP. Clojure certainly is. CL is not.
- pjmlp 2y agoSo that rules out most ML derived language as well, pity Standard M, OCaml, F#, Scala are no FP as well. /s