Re: What's so cool about Scheme?

[Michael Vanier <address@hidden>]

> X-Sender: mike%newhall.net@mailbox.newhall.net
> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:00:01 -0400
> From: Mike Newhall <mike@newhall.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Sender: owner-ll1-discuss@ai.mit.edu
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0
> 	tests=IN_REP_TO,REFERENCES,SPAM_PHRASE_01_02,SUPERLONG_LINE
> 	version=2.43
> X-Spam-Level: 
> 
> >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?
> 

Lots of them: SML, ocaml, Haskell, Clean, ... At least if what you mean by
dynamic is either or both of dynamic typing and code-as-data.  Dynamic in
your sense is by no means a prerequisite for a language to be functional.

Mike