>>29
That's probably more of a Scheme thing.
Common Lisp programmers use state freely, but they try not to use it unless needed. They'll code in a functional way a lot of the time, but if using state makes something simpler, then so be it.
I suppose they are different programming philosophies and ways of thinking, even if everything you can do in Scheme you can do in Lisp (and of course, you can do the same things in Scheme, but you would have to implement a lot of missing features - a lot of the time, these features are already implemented by real world implementations which provide many extensions). Lisp's programming philosophy is that the programmer should make use of what the language offers, be it high order functions, macros, lambdas, COMPILE (or even EVAL, even though there's almost always better solutions than EVAL), lexical/special scoping, reader macro characters (sometimes), a very wide variety of list/sequence manipulation functions (both functional and destructive versions), keyword/rest/optional arguments, CLOS/MOP, and many other things I'm too lazy to mention right now.