Why functional Python matters

[laotseu]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> laotseu <bdesth at removethis.free.fr> writes:
> 
> 
>>Lispers friends, let's have you're opinion on that point : is Common
>>Lisp a functionnal language ?
> 
> 
> It depends on your definition of "functional programming language".
> In the more general sense, any language with higher-order functions
> and functions as a first-class type is a functional programming
> language.  

Ok, the question coming from a 'Functional Python' point of view, the 
'more general sense' is enough for me.

And for you all dear Lispers, thanks for your opinions on that point. I 
know enough of lisp to know that it supports many paradigms and doesn't 
enforce a pure, religious FP style.

I notice that nobody here claimed that you could not do functional 
programming in Common Lisp.

 > In the strictest sense, the language has to be purely
 > applicative (or free of side effects).  Common Lisp satisfies the
 > first definition, but not the second.

Do you mean that it is *absolutely not possible* to write a whole 
program in CL whithout any side effect ? Or that many features in the 
language, that you can choose to use or not, are not side effect free ?

I might say that, in the first case, this does not prevent CL from being 
(also) a functional language in the 'strictest sens'.

Laotseu