Newsgroups: comp.lang.lisp,comp.lang.scheme
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!oitnews.harvard.edu!purdue!haven.umd.edu!hecate.umd.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!gatech!csulb.edu!hammer.uoregon.edu!news-xfer.netaxs.com!news.mathworks.com!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!btnet!btnet-feed2!bhars12c.bnr.co.uk!bcarh8ac.bnr.ca!bcarh189.bnr.ca!nott!kwon!watserv3.uwaterloo.ca!undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca!not-for-mail
From: papresco@csclub.uwaterloo.ca (Paul Prescod)
Subject: Re: Theory #51 (superior(?) programming languages)
Sender: news@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca (news spool owner)
Message-ID: <E5Kuu4.Dy1@undergrad.math.uwaterloo.ca>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 05:20:28 GMT
X-Newsposter: Pnews 4.0-test50 (13 Dec 96)
References: <5dr725$i6o@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>
Nntp-Posting-Host: calum.csclub.uwaterloo.ca
Organization: University of Waterloo Computer Science Club
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.lang.lisp:25396 comp.lang.scheme:18627

In article <5dr725$i6o@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>,
cosc19z5@bayou.uh.edu <cosc19z5@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?
They don't want to do functional programming and Lisp doesn't 
seem any better at procedural programming than anything else.

 Paul Prescod

