Paul Prescod (········@csclub.uwaterloo.ca) wrote:
: In article <··········@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>,
: ········@bayou.uh.edu <········@Bayou.UH.EDU> wrote:
: >On the contrary, I've found Lisp to work well as both a functional
: >and imperative (procedural) language.
: ...
: >One thing Lisp would be great for is as a stepping stone to
: >functional programming. Since you could do both procedural
: >and functional programming in Lisp, it makes the perfect
: >platform to bring procedural programmers to the functional
: >side of the fence.
: But why would they change to Lisp to do procedural programming?
For the same reason people switched from Pascal to C, even
though they were both procedural. There are gains to be
had, even if you utilize the same paradigm as the language
you left.
: They don't want to do functional programming and Lisp doesn't
: seem any better at procedural programming than anything else.
It is very high level, with built in support for lists,
excellent data abstraction mechanisms, a rather massive
slew of useful features, and more. This is more than enough
reason to move to Lisp.
Even when using the imperative style in Lisp, I was vastly more
productive than I could ever hope to be in C or C++. That's
more than reason enough to switch.
: Paul Prescod
--
Cya,
Ahmed
Don't you know you're beautiful?
Lush