Why functional Python matters - A kind of conclusion
bdesth at removethis.free.fr
Sat Apr 19 01:30:05 CEST 2003
Bjorn Pettersen wrote:
>>From: laotseu [mailto:bdesth at removethis.free.fr]
>>Paul Foley wrote:
>>>On Tue, 15 Apr 2003 23:49:37 +0000, laotseu wrote:
>>>>Even for OO programmers, functionnal features in Python are IMHO a
>>>>great plus, and BTW functionnal and OO paradigm does not have to
>>>>conflict (that would be functionnal vs imperative and object vs
>>>>procedural). CLOS is one of the great system objects out here, and
>>>>it's been implemented on top of a functionnal language,
>>>Oh yes? Which functional language would that be?
>>CLOS means Common Lisp Object System.
> "Houston: we have a claim that CL is a functional language, please
> proceed with crosspost to c.l.sml, c.l.haskell, ..." <grin>.
Due to my deep ignorance, I came to believe that Lisp was the first
programming language based on the lambda calculus theory, the first
language to promote functions as first class objects, and the first
language to promote side-effect free programming style...
It seems that good old time is gone, and that even lispers themselves -
BTW, is Paul Graham still a Lisper ? - claims that Lisp is not a
functional language. So I just can agree with them and <troll>proudly
announce that Lisp is now a procedural, pascal-style language</troll>.
oops, sorry, that was not that either. Er, a general multi-paradigm
for x in range(100):
print "I shall not say that Lisp is a functional language anymore"
More information about the Python-list