Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!mdisea!snead
From: snead@MDI.COM (Gregory Snead)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp
Subject: Re: Tradition Lisp code formatting
Message-ID: <1991Jun25.203650.11389@MDI.COM>
Date: 25 Jun 91 20:36:50 GMT
References: <20899@sdcc6.ucsd.edu> <2864C3CE.46E7@ibma0.cs.uiuc.edu> <GATELEY.91Jun24143442@gefion.rice.edu>
Sender: news@MDI.COM
Distribution: na
Organization: Motorola, Mobile Data Division - Seattle, WA
Lines: 34
Originator: snead@fh18c


In article <GATELEY.91Jun24143442@gefion.rice.edu>, gateley@rice.edu (John Gateley) writes:
|> 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?
|> 


I agree with you technically, but I still program as if LISP was a
functional language. In my opinion this makes my programs more
_correct_, at least in theory :{). I think the idea of LISP being
a functional language comes from its roots in lambda calculus. Perhaps
LISP was truly functional in its original conception.

=================================================================
(defun reply-address ()
   (print "A message for Gregory L. Snead") 
   
   (cond ((null (try-this-first snead@mdi.com))
            (try-this-instead uunet!mdisea!snead) )
         (t (print "Sorry, bub! Talk to your Sys Admin")) )
)
=================================================================