fructure VS paip-lisp

Even the racket teachpack libraries designed for education are very capable; I was able to make this structured editor with only using teachpack content without external deps: https://github.com/disconcision/fructure

Right, it's fine, and is a pretty basic macro. Doubly linked lists are pretty basic data structures too, even the Rust versions once you figure it out. I like your sibling comment making it look like the CL version. I still want to know in more detail though why you think that doing things this way instead of the CL way is less likely to be "fragile and break down" for the complicated stuff, it would help to have a specific complicated example to showcase. Perhaps the linked https://github.com/disconcision/fructure in another comment would be a good study? The author there claimed they might not have been able to manage with defmacro, maybe someone familiar with both could articulate the challenges in detail. Is it just an issue of some things benefit a lot from pattern matching, and if so, does using CL's Trivia system mitigate that at all (in the same way that using gensym+packages+Lisp-2ness can mitigate hygiene issues)?

see also: fructure

Have you seen https://stevelosh.com/blog/2018/08/a-road-to-common-lisp/ ? "Kludges" everywhere is applicable. On the other hand, having a function like "row-major-aref" that allows accessing any multi-dimensional array as if it were one dimensional is "sweeter than the honeycomb".

I still think CL code can be beautiful. Norvig's in PAIP https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp is nice.

As for the inside-out remark, while technically you do it, you don't have to, and it's very convenient to not do. Clojure has its semi-famous arrow macro that lets you write things in a more sequential style, it exists in CL too, and there's always the venerable let* binding. e.g. 3 options:

    (loop (print (eval (read))))

PAIP by Peter Norvig, Chapter 23, Compiling Lisp

https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter23...

Emacs is so much more than a text editor! But I need to stay on topic...

I believe your assessment of LISP (and therefore of MacArthy)'s impact on AI to be unfair. Just a few days ago https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp was discussed on this site, for example.

Sounds like a great project idea to make a toy demo of this direction you'd like to see. Maybe comparable to https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter15... and https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter8.... which are a few hundred lines of Lisp each, but do enough to be interesting.

You could look into Paradigms of AI Programming by Peter Norvig which might interest you regardless of Lisp content.

Lisp has great power, examine PAIP, part II chapters 7 and 8.

A computer running Prolog reasons, and that only requires a couple of pages of code. So it seems feasible that the network could have learned some ability to reason within its network.

IMHO it's because lisp shines to manipulate symbols whereas the current AI trend is crunching matrices.

When AI was about building grammars, trees, developing expert systems builds rules etc. symbol manipulation was king. Look at PAIP for some examples: https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp

This paradigm has changed.

Origen: Conversación con Bing, 4/4/2023(1) gigamonkey/monkeylib-binary-data - GitHub. https://github.com/gigamonkey/monkeylib-binary-data Con acceso 4/4/2023. (2) paip-lisp/chapter4.md at main · norvig/paip-lisp · GitHub. https://github.com/norvig/paip-lisp/blob/main/docs/chapter4.md Con acceso 4/4/2023. (3) bibliography.md · GitHub. https://gist.github.com/gigamonkey/6151820 Con acceso 4/4/2023.