[ExI] ai class at stanford
sjatkins at mac.com
Tue Aug 23 19:13:10 UTC 2011
On 08/23/2011 10:49 AM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 21, 2011 at 11:01 PM, spike<spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> Have we any Lisp hipsters here?
>> I have been getting back up to speed on my Python coding, but I never did
>> study Lisp, and it looks confusing. I know we have a bunch of code jockeys
>> and gurus of various scripting languages, but who here knows from Lisp? I
>> know Microsloth VBA and have written a lot of code in that, but it is nearly
>> useless for AI and isn't object oriented: it doesn't allow user-defined
>> functions. Who are our professional coders? Samantha? Others?
> I'm a professional programmer. I haven't used LISP in a long time, but
> I remember it. I "got it", but at the same time I found it so
> cumbersome to work in that I never thought it was much good for any of
> the projects I was interested in. It is very good for natural language
> processing, and for code that writes code... which is very
> interesting, but confusing as hell! :-)
Then you didn't get it. :) Especially you didn't fully get macros or
you would have tuned the language to exactly what you wanted and needed.
> So LISP is a nice thing to know... and it is very simple to learn...
> basically it goes like this
> (Operator Operand Operand ...) with 1 or more operands, that
> themselves can be this root structure.
That is about like describing only the function call of any language.
It doesn't tell you anything about why lisp is different.
> Most LISPs have a way to create new Operators too (functions and
> procedures) so you don't have to have the whole program in one list.
All lisps have this. All functions and macros, except for a tiny number
of special operators, are user level equivalent. Any lisp without both
first class functions and macros is not lisp.
More information about the extropy-chat