milewski-ctfp-pdf VS paip-lisp

Category Theory for Programmers by Bartosz Milewski (https://github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ctfp-pdf/releases)

Strangely similar name to the well-known 'Category Theory for Programmers'

https://github.com/hmemcpy/milewski-ctfp-pdf

There's this, but the programmer doesn't have to be working:

https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-p...

Milewski's "Category Theory for Programmers".

(3) category theory. I was never advised to read any, but found that bartosz's introduction really good. https://bartoszmilewski.com/2014/10/28/category-theory-for-programmers-the-preface/. Helps to rewire the brain.

It's also possible to model programming languages using category theory, but I know less about that. If you're interested in following this up, then Benjamin Pierce has what I'm told is a good introduction to category theory for computer scientists, and Bartosz Milweski has an online book (it might be available in hard copy as well, I'm not sure) called Category Theory for Programmers. I believe simple programming languages like the simply typed lambda calculus end up being modelled as Cartesian closed categories.

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.