+1 ... Not that I am a big groovy fan either ;) Perhaps an argument could be made for LISP based on the breadth of existing work in LISP, though.
On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry > <mcmurry.a...@gmail.com<javascript:;>> > wrote: > > Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP > work than Groovy > > Sorry, I have to call this one out. I don't think having origins in > LISP makes anything a better fit for serious NLP work. Not that I'm > against Clojure or that I'm recommending Groovy. But there's nothing > inherent about LISP that makes it a better fit for NLP. > > If you want to argue that functional paradigms (e.g. LISP, Haskell, > Scala, Map-Reduce) are better for serious NLP work, I might believe > that argument. But I don't think there's anything special about LISP > that makes it better for NLP than other functional languages. > > Steve > -- -- Karthik Sarma UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20?? Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab Member, CA Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical Association ksa...@ksarma.com gchat: ksa...@gmail.com linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma
