Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!ogicse!hsdndev!rice!news!gateley From: gateley@rice.edu (John Gateley) Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp Subject: Re: Tradition Lisp code formatting Message-ID: Date: 24 Jun 91 18:34:42 GMT References: <20899@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <2864C3CE.46E7@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> Sender: news@rice.edu (News) Organization: Rice University Lines: 20 In-Reply-To: epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu's message of 23 Jun 91 15:52:45 GMT In article <2864C3CE.46E7@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> epstein@sunc2.cs.uiuc.edu (Milt Epstein) writes: [discussing formatting of Lisp] OK, what's the major difference between a language like LISP and a language like C. Well, LISP is functional programming and C is imperative. Auugh Auugh Auuugh! Lisp is NOT a functional programming language!! A functional language is one without side-effects, and Lisp definitely has side effects. I think what you meant to say was that the style in Lisp was to package everything into functions, while C tends to emphasize fewer (and larger) functions. Isn't terminology wonderful? j -- "I've thought the thoughts of little children and the thoughts of men I've thought the thoughts of stupid people who have never been so much in love as they should be and got confused too easily to fall in love again." The Residents and Renaldo and the Loaf