"Francis Cianfrocca" <garbagecat10 / gmail.com> writes:

>>
>> Except just about all Lisps are dynamically-typed, not lazy and not
>> side-effect free either...  Haskell would make a good addition to the
>> taxonomy on itself.--
>>
> I guess you could say that. I used to write compilers for a living, so
> perhaps my perspective is different. To me the essential trait that
> distiguishes the Lisp-like family is that they're all based on
> lambda-calculus. Everything Algol-like (including Ruby) is basically a
> Turing machine. SQL and similar languages are off to the side, and Fortran I
> guess would have to be classed as Turing-like. We're way off thread here, so
> if you want to have the last word, be my guest ;-).

I didn't write a compiler worth that name yet, but I read a fair lot
about compiling Lisp, Scheme and Haskell.  All I can say, a good
Haskell compiler is pretty different to a good Lisp compiler.

-- 
Christian Neukirchen  <chneukirchen / gmail.com>  http://chneukirchen.org