4 ms·
What do you mean? Remember, that lisp isn't inherently a pure functional programming language. On the contrary, it's a very versatile multi-paradigm language.
by Munksgaard 13y ago
What do you mean? Remember, that lisp isn't inherently a pure functional programming language. On the contrary, it's a very versatile multi-paradigm language.
- michaelwww 13y agoI thought LISP was a functional language and I'm wondering how redefining a function at runtime is not a state change, but no matter, I'm reading Steve Yegge at the moment and his old take down of LISP which confirms my suspicions (don't you love it when you read something that does that ;-) http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptable-lisp.html http://steve-yegge.blogspot.com/2006/04/lisp-is-not-acceptab...
- Munksgaard 13y agoThanks, that was a very interesting blog post. I feel like the comments add a lot of balance to the discussion (especially Pascal's, which Steve also mention in the blog itself). There's no doubt that lisp has its problems, because if not, it would be a lot more popular today than is the case. Do note however, that a lot has changed since Steve posted that blog entry, most notably is the rise of clojure, which offers solutions to a lot of the problems mentioned.
- michaelwww 13y agoRich Hickey is a very interesting language designer and maybe the "benevolent dictator" that Lisp needs. Clojure works on the JVM and .Net as well as emitting JavaScript, so I'll probably take the plunge with it. I also thought the Light Table demo was extremely interesting. Good stuff.