> The author very clearly defined what he means by functional, and he is correct, idiomatic Lisp is not.
But if the definition is the author's own special definition, the conclusion may be true and still be completely uninteresting. The standard definition is the standard one for a reason - it turns out to be useful for having meaningful conversations about the issue.
But even if you accept the author's definition, then you run into:
> In fact it can be argued that lisp is one of the least functional languages ever created
For that to be true, "one of the least functional languages ever created" must be a really large set. That set must include, say, 95% of all languages ever created - which makes the claim not a very meaningful statement.
But if the definition is the author's own special definition, the conclusion may be true and still be completely uninteresting. The standard definition is the standard one for a reason - it turns out to be useful for having meaningful conversations about the issue.
But even if you accept the author's definition, then you run into:
> In fact it can be argued that lisp is one of the least functional languages ever created
For that to be true, "one of the least functional languages ever created" must be a really large set. That set must include, say, 95% of all languages ever created - which makes the claim not a very meaningful statement.