On Thu, Mar 12, 2015 at 6:57 AM, Rustom Mody wrote:Does anyone have/know the original reference?eg http://dis.4chan.org/read/prog/1376090701There is this quote:found here and there on the netIt needs to be said very firmly that LISP is not a functional language at all. My suspicion is that the success of Lisp set back the development of a properly functional style of programming by at least ten years. David TurnerAs the 10th entry on my version of Google, I found:Michael J C GordonProgramming Language Theory and its Implementation: Applicative and Imperative ParadigmsGordon provides a more complete version of the quote on p. 148:Here , for example, is a quotation by David Turner from the discussion after his paper in the book Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages:It needs to be said very firmly that LISP, at least as represented by the dialects in common use, is not a functional language at all. LISP does have a functional subset, but that is a rather inconvenient programming language and there exists no significant body of programs written in it. Almost all serious programming in LISP makes heavy use of side effects and other referentially opaque features.
I think that the historical importance of LISP is that it was the fi rst language to provide ‘garbage- collected’ heap storage. This was a very important step forward. For the development of functional programming , however, I feel that the contribution of LISP has been a negative one. My suspicion is that the success of LISP set back the development of a properly functional style of programming by at least ten years.The cited paper for the quote is:Turner , DA. Functional programs as executable specifications, in Hoare CAR and Shepherdson JC ( eds.) Mathematical Logic and Programming Languages Prentice Hall, 1985.The quote is the discussion for the paper, found on p. 387.Regards,Sean