Language categories

[Thant Tessman]

Cameron Laird wrote:
> In article <sDJ2b.1909$_F1.271943 at news20.bellglobal.com>,
> Sean Ross <sross at connectmail.carleton.ca> wrote:
> 
>>>"Sean Ross" <sross at connectmail.carleton.ca> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>>(Lisp, Dylan, Haskell, ocaml, or some other functional programming
>>>>language).
> 
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> 
>>Okay. "..., or some other language that supports functional programming
>>style)" (which would include those mentioned, and many more besides). For
>>instance,
>>
>>http://directory.google.com/Top/Computers/Programming/Languages/Functional/?tc=1
>>Aleph (1)
>>BETA (8)
>>Caml (2)
>>Clean (6)
>>Dylan (19)    <
>>Erlang (313)
>>Haskell (48)    <
>>Leda (5)
>>Lisp (378)    <
>>Logo (46)
>>Lua (18)
>>Mercury (4)
>>Miranda (10)
>>ML (35)
>>Mozart (2)
>>Objective Caml (5)    <
>>Pliant (16)
>>POP-11 (6)
>>REBOL (95)
>>Scheme (127)
>>Sisal (12)
> 
> 			.
> 			.
> 			.
> Someone needs to talk with the googlers; REBOL and Dylan
> are not functional languages.  And Lisp ... well, Lisp is
> universal, so let's let that pass.

Not to re-open that can o' worms, but last time I looked, Dylan 
supported functional programming style just fine. If memory serves, its 
word for 'lambda' is 'method.' I've never heard of REBOL.

-thant