Re: Is Dylan a functional language?

• To: info-dylan@ai.mit.edu
• Subject: Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• From: "Ben Wolfson" <wolfson@uchicago.edu>
• Date: Tue, 9 Oct 2001 00:45:01 -0400 (EDT)
• Organization: Prophets of Doom, Inc. Beware the Imminent Immanence!
• References: <3BC2532B.5030707@staffware-spokane.com> <bruce-7163B3.14560209102001@news.paradise.net.nz>
• User-Agent: Pan/0.10.0 (Unix)
• Xref: traf.lcs.mit.edu comp.lang.dylan:13715

In article <bruce-7163B3.14560209102001@news.paradise.net.nz>, "Bruce
Hoult" <bruce@hoult.org> wrote:

> In article <3BC2532B.5030707@staffware-spokane.com>, Doug Hockin
> <dhockin@staffware-spokane.com> wrote:
> 
>> Should Dylan show up in this list of functional languages?
>> 
>> http://dmoz.org/Computers/Programming/Languages/Functional/
> 
> If Common Lisp and Scheme and OCaml are there (which they are) then
> Dylan certainly should be too.
> 
> Like them Dylan has all the features needed to be used in a purely
> functional style, but doesn't force you into programming that way.

If you look in the Lisp sub-page, there are Dylan links.

-- 
Barnabas T. Rumjuggler
All obscurity will buy you is time enough to contract venereal diseases.
 -- Tim Peters

• Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• From: Stefan Schmiedl <s@xss.de>

• Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• From: Bruce Hoult <bruce@hoult.org>

• Prev: Re: Is Dylan a functional language?
• Next: Deuce display problem and possible fix
• Index(es):
  • Main
  • Thread