chaoky

6 ms·

1.
by chaoky 8y ago
Absolutely not. Czech orthography is beautiful. Latin letters, clear featural marking of palatal consonants (č, š, ž, ď, ť) and simple marking of vowel length (á). The spelling is even morphophonemic!
2.
by chaoky 8y ago
Machine translation is AI-hard. If this happens in 30 years we might as well have reached the singularity as computers will understand natural language and all of its meaning completely.
3.
by chaoky 9y ago
That sort of misses the point. It is pretty soul destroying to cold call that many people.
4.
by chaoky 9y ago
NLP is a domain specific problem. Of course it shouldn't be under computer science. Pure computer scientists are much less useful than linguists for these things. That's like arguing that building physics simulations is under the
5.
by chaoky 9y ago
Elisp would still a better much better language than python or Ruby (for emacs), especially now that lexical binding is becoming standard. Emacs people would like to move to scheme, if anything. (even RMS wishes emacs would move to scheme.)
6.
by chaoky 9y ago
On the flip side, most of the world is multlingual or have at least been exposed to one other language. If you speak more than one language, mixing words from two or more basically renders dictionary attacks impossible, especially with numb
7.
by chaoky 9y ago
I think you're confusing syntax and semantics. The claim is that C is not really semantically well defined, but your toplevel posts talk about the fact that C has well defined syntax, which is true. However, that's besides the poi
8.
by chaoky 9y ago
In Common Lisp, you write to source code files and then use ASDF/Quicklisp to compile/load that project. If you feel the need to create a standalone executable you can dump the image with an entry function specified. It's ess
9.
by chaoky 9y ago
No, programming languages are completely different from natural languages. You are conflating some concepts here. There are artificial programming languages which are context free and express computation more or less. Then there are artific
10.
by chaoky 10y ago
Please tell me this is sarcasm! It's hard to tell. If it isn't, then all I have to say is that hacker news is written in the lisp dialect arc of Paul Graham, who got rich off of a customer facing site written in common lisp...
11.
Firefox: Project Quantum(medium.com)
2 points by chaoky 10y ago|0 comments
12.
by chaoky 11y ago
It's not a question of inherent difficulty, which doesn't make sense to quantify absolutely. It's all about how similar it is to the random person's native language, phonologically, morphologically, syntactically etc...
13.
by chaoky 11y ago
The central axiom of linguistics is that no language is inherently more expressive than another. Yes, that means that conjugation and declension is no more complicated than strict word order. Grammatical gender provides redundancy, and conj
14.
by chaoky 11y ago
Most distros provide sbcl binaries, but otherwise you're stuck building from the github mirror or downloading a binary from sbcl.org.
15.
by chaoky 11y ago
Good Common Lisp doesn't use lists. A Lisp app does nothing like processing lists; in fact, Common Lisp only uses list-processing for processing source-code (aka macros). It is much more like a faster, more functional Ruby or Python in
16.
by chaoky 11y ago
SLIME emphasizes interactivity. Coupled with the fact that it uses the full power of Emacs (which is a small lisp vm, though a different dialect of lisp), you can do things like inspect any object or package in your system on the fly, view
17.
by chaoky 11y ago
Scheme is not "fully functional". Neither is Common Lisp. No one will say they are mostly imperative either. But they work; before AI winter there were many machines and OS's built on top of them and their immediate predecess
18.
by chaoky 11y ago
No runtime consing of closures either! In fact, in Common Lisp there is a style of writing call-with-foo that takes a closure and wrapping that with a macro with-foo. Since the macro abstracts that detail of having call-with, it is much mor
19.
by chaoky 11y ago
the article brings up a good point with 'systems language'. What is a systems language anyways? I guess C is, but whats the definition? Is common lisp a 'systems language'? After all, a good number of operating systems h
20.
by chaoky 11y ago
Semantically, I'm writing in common lisp. If you mean the syntax, that's an ad hoc thing that comes up when writing in an HTML text box and emacs isnt here. But the syntax is shallow and unimportant compared to the abstraction pre
21.
by chaoky 11y ago
Sure, ruby has nice syntax for lambda, but the entire point is not even having to worry about what goes into blocks and what not. Syntax is a bad excuse for abstraction. Lisp has higher order functions too, but a deceptively short (or &quot
22.
by chaoky 11y ago
A higher order function doesn't serve the same purpose as a macro. A higher order function is meant to be applied, called, composed etc. A lisp macro is a different type of abstraction. For example, many people think that macros are ju
23.
by chaoky 11y ago
It takes around maybe ~15 minutes on my 6 year old laptop.
24.
by chaoky 12y ago
Interesting, very reminiscent of Lisp macros! Glad to see that python code transforming isn't too difficut.
25.
by chaoky 12y ago
Well, those functions are pretty much obsolete. No one uses them. They are only in the standard for backwards compatibility (and don't use that as an argument because that is a legitimate reason and those names are easily ignored. they
26.
by chaoky 12y ago
This. Arguing that Common Lisp sucks because the names of functions are not sufficiently python/C/Algol-like is like arguing Chinese languages are never going to become widely accepted because they aren't sufficiently like Eu
27.
by chaoky 12y ago
Definitely not. It's almost hard to think of what Lisp doesn't let you change at runtime, since the compiler is always there. Common Lisp is in fact much more dynamic at run time than python/ruby/smalltalk. I would say t
28.
by chaoky 12y ago
SBCL targets x86, alpha, ARM, x86-64, and PPC in fact. Python doesn't actually target C, it targets a bytecode VM that's interpreted by C. which obviously is much easier to do. (there are many CL implmentations that use this appro
29.
by chaoky 12y ago
The public domain CMUCL/SBCL line of compilers (as well as most commercial common lisps) are notorious for being the fastest dynamic/interactive systems since the 1990's. Most dynamic languages are still nowhere near the spee
30.
by chaoky 12y ago
Common Lisp, for sure

More ›