Chad Perrin wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 23, 2007 at 01:29:16PM +0900, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:
>> I'm not sure what "multi-paradigm" means, but Lisp 1.5, Common Lisp and 
>> Scheme are at their core functional languages based on the lambda 
>> calculus with "enough" imperative features, macros and side effects to 
>> get work done. An awful lot of Lisp (and Scheme) code has been written 
>> over the years, but it's still really Lisp 1.5 at heart.
> 
> I think, in this context, "multi-paradigm" is intended to mean
> functional, object oriented, imperative/procedural, and maybe even a
> little declarative, all at once.

Well, then, every Turing-complete language is multi-paradigm, right? The 
core of Scheme and Common Lisp is "car", "cdr", "cons", "lambda", 
S-expressions and M-expressions mapped into S-expressions, etc., just 
like good ol' Lisp 1.5. Lisp 1.5 had "progn", though, so I guess you 
could claim it was procedural. Objects were grafted onto Lisp just like 
they were grafted onto Perl and Python. Lisp wasn't *born* with objects 
in the same sense as Smalltalk, Java and Ruby were. Now I would call 
Ruby a multi-paradigm language before I'd call Scheme one.