[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: What's so cool about Scheme?
> X-Sender: email@example.com
> Date: Tue, 03 Jun 2003 11:00:01 -0400
> From: Mike Newhall <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
> Sender: email@example.com
> Precedence: bulk
> X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.8 required=5.0
> >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.
> 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.