XPost: comp.lang.lisp   
   From: yarden@umd.edu   
      
   Christopher Browne  writes:   
      
   > A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Nameless"    
   wrote:   
   >>> A good procedural language is better.  And Lisp is one of the   
   >>> best.   
   >>   
   >> I don't buy that either. Firstly, Lisp is a functional, not a   
   >> procedural, language.   
   >   
   > Nonsense.  It includes some functional facilities, but if you're into   
   > "functional programming," ML and Haskell are likely to be vastly more   
   > fitting.   
   >   
   > Lisp functions in a nicely procedural manner:   
   >   
   > (loop   
   >      for i from 1 to n by 3   
   >      do (something-with i))   
   >   
   > If it were purely functional, there wouldn't be the side-effects of   
   > SETF and such.   
      
   You are obviously right in your point, but is "procedural" the first   
   characterization of Lisp that comes to your mind?  In my opinion both   
   "procedural" and "functional" as one-word characterization of Lisp are   
   flawed, although the latter is probably more flawed than the former.   
   --   
   Yarden Katz   |  Mind the gap   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated.  To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]   
   [ that fails mail your article to , and ]   
   [ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)