Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!spool2.mu.edu!samsung!dali.cs.montana.edu!milton!milton.u.washington.edu!jsp
From: jsp@glia.biostr.washington.edu. (Jeff Prothero)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Lisp vs Functional programming
Message-ID: <JSP.91Jan14114016@glia.biostr.washington.edu.>
Date: 14 Jan 91 19:40:16 GMT
References: <2456@paradigm.com> <22573@well.sf.ca.us>
	<96861@aerospace.AERO.ORG> <5256@idunno.Princeton.EDU>
	<1991Jan14.141651.12321@arris.com>
Sender: news@milton.u.washington.edu
Organization: Biological Structure, U of Wash, Seattle
Lines: 25
In-reply-to: rshapiro@arris.com's message of 14 Jan 91 14:16:51 GMT

In article <1991Jan14.141651.12321@arris.com> rshapiro@arris.com (Richard Shapiro) writes:

>[Lisp is] the best general purpose programming language for symbolic
>computing, and symbolic computing has turned out to be very useful in
>AI applications. There are special purpose languages that are better
>at symbol manipulation, but of the widely available general languages,
>no other one really comes close.

Speaking as one of those brain-dead C hackers who's beginning to take
an interest in Lisp (and a little discouraged to hear it's dead :-),
I'd be curious to hear what you hardcore Lisp types think about the
latest wave of functional languages generally, and Haskell in
particular.

* Bad idea?

* Potential replacement for lisp?

* Interesting idea, but completely different ecological niche?

(My apologies if this issue has been beaten to death already!)

--
Jeff Prothero (jsp@u.washington.edu)  <std disclaimer>
Biological Structure Graphics Lab, University of Washington