It is a common mistake I've heard from many CL newbies that believe CL is a "FP" language. The best descriptor I can find to date (of CL) is, "programmable pro

It is a common mistake I've heard from many CL newbies that believe CL is a "FP" language. The best descriptor I can find to date (of CL) is, "programmable programming language," which allows it to encompass almost every desired feature one may need; including many that fall under the FP umbrella which may be where the confusion stems from. However one of the opening points of the talk was that, "FP," is not a rigorously defined term and is subject to interpretation. Which leads to bikeshedding over language features and a lot of hype. I believe it also leads to a lot of misplaced faith in the purity and completeness of mathematics (it's almost as if the popular notion of FP is being reborn as a modern Principia Mathematica). CL obviously cannot be called an, "FP," language since its inception seems to predate the popular notion of the term. Scala may suffer in the same way due to its reliance on the JVM and the expression semantics it has carried over from Java. However many of the features one tends to associate with modern FP languages (though not all) are present in both languages. As for your aside, how so? Perhaps a discussion we can have over email if you're interested. You sound smart. However I don't understand your statement and would like to know more.