Talk:Function definition: Difference between revisions
→Lisp, BASIC
(reply re Lisp) |
|||
Line 30:
* I disagree about Lisp, for the same kind of reason you consider BASIC not a single language, but it's not worth arguing over. I won't object if you readd the "Lisp" example. --[[User:Kevin Reid|Kevin Reid]] 14:44, 1 March 2008 (MST)
:: Well, the differences in BASIC are far greater: It isn't even possible to write a (non-empty) ''do-nothing'' program which works both in original BASIC and current languages using that name.
:: It certainly doesn't make sense to have both Lisp and Common Lisp here (it would make sense if Common Lisp had significant differences relevant for that task). IMHO it would however be reasonable to move the Common Lisp example to "Lisp" --[[User:Ce|Ce]] 08:01, 2 March 2008 (MST)
| |||