Re: What's so cool about Scheme?

[Mike Newhall <address@hidden>]

>I agree with what you're getting at but would add that code-as-data and 
>dynamic features including dynamic typing are just as at home with OO 
>languages and not unique or any better suited (IFAICS) to functional 
>flavored languages like LISP.
>
>Cheers,
>Steve

	I agree, but actually you remind me perhaps of the label that I was looking for: "dynamic languages".  OO and dynamic are independent feature axes; in that sense of course dynamic features *are* unique to dynamic languages! :-)  However if the 'functional' feature set means higher-order functions, then 'dynamic' may be a requirement of being 'functional'.  Are there any languages that do *not* have dynamicism yet are considered functional?