4 ms·

The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp.

by eelco 16y ago

lisper 16y ago
It's far from clear which way the causality runs.
- dminor 16y ago
  Well, the 33 lisp entrants don't appear to hold the top 33 spots: http://ai-contest.com/language_profile.php?lang=Lisp http://ai-contest.com/language_profile.php?lang=Lisp
  - fhars 16y ago
    So more than a fifth of the lisp entries are in the bottom twentyfifth of the competition. So you could also use the contest results to argue that lisp is five times worse for AI than the average language. (Or, rather, that language alone doesn't guarantee success, but that would be too rational and boring for an online forum).
    - gruseom 16y ago
      You'd have to be an idiot to argue that language alone guarantees success. A more common bad argument is say that because this is idiotic it follows that language is irrelevant. That's actually a popular position nowadays. Just because computers obey the law of excluded middle does not mean we should.
    - ohyes 16y ago
      Your math doesn't seem to work. For that to be true, more than a quarter would have to be in the bottom 25th percentile. (In fact, it still points to lisp being better than average). Anyway, The bottom 25th percentile of the competition is relegated to submissions that didn't run. There was a bug (still is, I believe) in the lisp 'starter pack,' which caused the client to crash (It sent garbage to the server or something). So even the default Java starter submission would beat it. Given the number of people who submitted once and walked away, I wouldn't read too much into it anyway.
bOR_ 16y ago
The point the guy himself makes is that lisp allows him to be a great programmer. Of course the program could be rewritten into qbasic. It is getting your ideas and thoughts into a form that is not a compromise to the language which matters.
- gruseom 16y ago
  Yes. Any program can be written in any Turing-complete language, but is far from equally likely to be written in it.
gruseom 16y ago
The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp. Given that people have argued that the absence of Lisp winners from such competitions is evidence against Lisp's greatness (I'm going by memory here and don't have time to dredge up the record), it seems relevant to point out when it does happen.
- foljs 16y ago
  So, essentially: a) given that people has made bad arguments before b) it "seems relevant" to make bad arguments in the opposite direction now Huh?
  - gruseom 16y ago
    It's relevant because it's a counterexample. Now people can't say, "If Lisp is so good why don't people win these things with it?" They have to say things like this instead: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961546 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961546 Obviously the OP is relevant for other, better reasons than this, but that's what my comment meant.
    - foljs 16y ago
      It would only be a "counterexample" if it was a valid example. This only keeps the "counter" part, but as an example it is flawed.
  - natep 16y ago
    I think it's worth pointing out that not only is the argument logically incorrect, it's based on incorrect facts. For example: A: "Lisp sucks. If it didn't, we'd see it winning contests or something" B: "But it has been used to win a contest. Besides, you're really bad at making an argument"
    - natep 16y ago
      Wait, what? My original comment got at least one upvote, and then my edit ("For example:..."), that was meant to clarify what I was saying, is getting downvotes. Can someone explain? I'm not trying to disagree with the OP in general (you can't fight bad logic with more bad logic) but just pointing out that correcting someone's facts can be easier (and with this datum point, possible). Edit: I like the upvote, but an explanation would be better.
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
brlewis 16y ago
It's the pianist, not the piano. It's the photographer, not the camera. Nonetheless, highly skilled people do care about their tools. From the article: "Lisp doesn’t get in my way as much as other languages."

The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp.

by eelco 16y ago

The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp.

lisper 16y ago

It's far from clear which way the causality runs.

dminor 16y ago
Well, the 33 lisp entrants don't appear to hold the top 33 spots: http://ai-contest.com/language_profile.php?lang=Lisp http://ai-contest.com/language_profile.php?lang=Lisp
- fhars 16y ago
  So more than a fifth of the lisp entries are in the bottom twentyfifth of the competition. So you could also use the contest results to argue that lisp is five times worse for AI than the average language. (Or, rather, that language alone doesn't guarantee success, but that would be too rational and boring for an online forum).
  - gruseom 16y ago
    You'd have to be an idiot to argue that language alone guarantees success. A more common bad argument is say that because this is idiotic it follows that language is irrelevant. That's actually a popular position nowadays. Just because computers obey the law of excluded middle does not mean we should.
  - ohyes 16y ago
    Your math doesn't seem to work. For that to be true, more than a quarter would have to be in the bottom 25th percentile. (In fact, it still points to lisp being better than average). Anyway, The bottom 25th percentile of the competition is relegated to submissions that didn't run. There was a bug (still is, I believe) in the lisp 'starter pack,' which caused the client to crash (It sent garbage to the server or something). So even the default Java starter submission would beat it. Given the number of people who submitted once and walked away, I wouldn't read too much into it anyway.

bOR_ 16y ago

The point the guy himself makes is that lisp allows him to be a great programmer. Of course the program could be rewritten into qbasic. It is getting your ideas and thoughts into a form that is not a compromise to the language which matters.

gruseom 16y ago
Yes. Any program can be written in any Turing-complete language, but is far from equally likely to be written in it.

gruseom 16y ago

The point is that he won because he's a great programmer, not because he used Lisp. Given that people have argued that the absence of Lisp winners from such competitions is evidence against Lisp's greatness (I'm going by memory here and don't have time to dredge up the record), it seems relevant to point out when it does happen.

foljs 16y ago
So, essentially: a) given that people has made bad arguments before b) it "seems relevant" to make bad arguments in the opposite direction now Huh?
- gruseom 16y ago
  It's relevant because it's a counterexample. Now people can't say, "If Lisp is so good why don't people win these things with it?" They have to say things like this instead: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961546 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1961546 Obviously the OP is relevant for other, better reasons than this, but that's what my comment meant.
  - foljs 16y ago
    It would only be a "counterexample" if it was a valid example. This only keeps the "counter" part, but as an example it is flawed.
- natep 16y ago
  I think it's worth pointing out that not only is the argument logically incorrect, it's based on incorrect facts. For example: A: "Lisp sucks. If it didn't, we'd see it winning contests or something" B: "But it has been used to win a contest. Besides, you're really bad at making an argument"
  - natep 16y ago
    Wait, what? My original comment got at least one upvote, and then my edit ("For example:..."), that was meant to clarify what I was saying, is getting downvotes. Can someone explain? I'm not trying to disagree with the OP in general (you can't fight bad logic with more bad logic) but just pointing out that correcting someone's facts can be easier (and with this datum point, possible). Edit: I like the upvote, but an explanation would be better.

deleted 16y ago

[deleted]

brlewis 16y ago

It's the pianist, not the piano. It's the photographer, not the camera. Nonetheless, highly skilled people do care about their tools. From the article: "Lisp doesn’t get in my way as much as other languages."