prem@RESEARCH.ATT.COM (04/18/88)
This is a very cute, and compact retort, but not very convinving; it admits of very many similar cute and compact retorts, one of which is given below as an example : "Why would I want to write a program in assembly language that figured out how to stack colored blocks on a table, and very very slowly at that ?" or, Prem Devanbu (A diehard lisp fan who would like to see a better argument for lisp, even if it is less cute or compact)
mob@mit-amt.MEDIA.MIT.EDU (Mario O Bourgoin) (04/18/88)
A better, cute and compact argument for Lisp: Scheme.
tracy@ihlpa.UUCP (Tracy) (04/22/88)
In article <8804180635.AA09224@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, prem@RESEARCH.ATT.COM writes: > > This is a very cute, and compact retort, but not very convinving; it admits > of very many similar cute and compact retorts... The essence of JMC's retort was not to be convincing, but rather to show that they missed the point of why AI (or LISP, for that matter) is useful. Clearly, you could not convince someone that the problem could not be solved in assembly language, because in theory it could be done. It just is not easy. --Kim Tracy AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville, IL, ..ihnp4!ihlpa!tracy But of course, it's only my opinion!