I think that more important than dynamic typing is the high level abstraction provided by functional programming. And there, Haskell is certainly lisp's equal, if not its superior. In fact, I would argue that it's superior, due to lazy evaluation, and all its implications (monads, infinite streams, etc.). On 3/28/07, Setzer, Sebastian (ext) <sebastian.setzer.ext@siemens.com> wrote:
Andrew Wagner wrote:
Functional programming has long been recognized as an excellent paradigm for Artificial Intelligence. One reason why LISP is used for AI is (in my opinion, more important than functional programming) that ist's easy to work with "symbols" in LISP. How easy is this in Haskell? Does it matter that, in Haskell, every symbol must have a type that's known at compile time?
Sebastian Setzer _______________________________________________ Haskell mailing list Haskell@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell