|
|
|
|
|
|
by 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. |
|
|
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.