On Oct 24, 2007, at 4:53 AM, M. Edward (Ed) Borasky wrote:

> 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.

When I mentioned multi-paradigm there was a response to someone  
mentioning Scheme and Common Lisp. I didn't see "mostly functional"  
was referring to Lisp 1.5 and not Common Lisp. It is Common Lisp the  
one I think it is multi-paradigm.