Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by metamemetics 5710 days ago
>I wouldn't be drawing diagrams of synapses and how the chemical signals flow

I actually think that's a pretty good analogy for what programmers do. You program the give function to accepted the variables nominative (you), accussative(hot dog), and dative(me). Now lets say you want to create multiple functions (give, send, take) that are operators on nominative, accussative, dative and want to reuse code easily. Or you want to use your "give" function to define what a "gift" is. No problem in LISP.
1 comments
bad_user 5710 days ago
Well yes ... LISP is like a language framework, with which you can evolve your own languages suitable for problem domains.

But I just don't get the correlation between its direct representation as syntax trees and being more natural to people (which the parent was arguing).

A language can have hooks for evolving into what you want, it's just incredibly hard to do it without a LISP syntax. But natural language ain't easy to parse either.

link
metamemetics 5710 days ago
>being more natural to people

My argument was actually that things modeled after genetically evolved structures share in the advantages of increased genetic fitness inherent in that design. i.e. Survivability and future-proofness. [i.e. the OP may indeed not need to ever learn another language before he dies] It was not an argument that genetically evolved structures are easy to grok.

link