Neural Networks Clojure
Brian Carper described a few days ago, how Clojure is better (for him) than Common Lisp (actually, SBCL). I managed to dig through ensuing flame war, but it seems like nobody in the flame war realized (or it wasn’t stressed enough) that original post is actually comparing apples to oranges, a serious language to a toy language.
A language, to be considered serious, needs to be self-sufficient, a serious language can’t be a mere parasite on some host language or environment, and its bus factor can’t be finite. That translates to just a couple of features:
- A serious language has to have a defining standard, it can’t be implementation-defined. A good standard bumps language’s bus factor to aleph null: after a nuclear catastrophe, archæologists of future generations should be able to re-implement the language on any hardware, including the Calculor;
- A serious language has to be self-hosting, or at least have some self-hosting implementations. Only then language stops being dependent on other languages.
Leaving aside other important traits (such as having multiple implementations, having a machine code compiler, extensibility, and so on), these two alone are necessary and sufficient for language to be serious; all programing languages not having these traits are just toys that can’t be guaranteed to last.
Source: Three of Coins
You might also like:
Stock market analysts on trial2002-02-09 14:24:25 by on-trial
The amount of poor and self-interested advice that is being issued by brokerages and their analysts. To this day, the majority of stockbrokers are compensated on the number of trades their customers make, not on the returns they generate for them or on the quality of the advice they provide. We believe that the price targets and analyst ratings are made with several masters in mind, none of whom are the individual investor. In a similar fashion, sell-side stock analysts are generally compensated based upon the overall profitability of their firms, not the quality or accuracy of their analysis. In the end, analysts have minimal structural incentive to be accurate in their predictions; rather their built-in incentive is to be as favorable to their corporate clients as possible. It is a...
Gurus' Results Stay Consistently Bad — Forbes
Investment gurus make their money selling market predictions, not following them. Their overall performance has been historically and consistently dismal. Why people pay for market predictions is a one of Wall Street's biggest mysteries.