Language categories (was: Advice to a Junior in High School?)

[Cameron Laird]

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.
-- 

Cameron Laird <Cameron at Lairds.com>
Business:  http://www.Phaseit.net
Personal:  http://phaseit.net/claird/home.html