If you ever wondered how to write a programming language, this is probably the best resource to get started (and then of course Crafting Interpreters).
One of those exercises that are now just boring, because AI does it better.
Gemini did write Lisp-1 interpreter in Linux-assembly the other day. It was ready to implement garbage collection and compiler and all shit, but that was just depressing from human point of view.
There is always someone better than you at almost everything you do, this is statistical reality.
If all you care about is the artifact and not the path, there is no reason to do anything.
Use the tool to better yourself, your understanding and push the limits of what is possible. If an Lisp in assembly with GC is now hello world, change what a hard project is.
I see this attitude a lot, and I think it is rooted in a sort of self-centered elitism. Anyone can do it, so why do it? Instead you could have the AI teach you how to implement it yourself with a deep understanding that no human, even if you paid them, would put up with.
It depends why you're doing it. Are you doing it for the product or the process? (Of course, they're not mutually exclusive.) I do it for the fun of building, in which case AI is irrelevant.
There are two problems with Lisp parentheses in my opinion:
1) Humans are not that equipped to handle that level of nesting without some other aid, this is why Lisp code is usually indented.
2) Parentheses aren't just about grouping, and this is unintuitive. For example, x is not the same as (x). This is a bit like in set theory where x is not the same as {x}, but parentheses do not look like the kind of sign that would work like that.
I changed my opinion about parens when I stopped formatting like C, and used indent rather than parens to denote blocks. That is, a large amount of them at the end is totally fine.
There are edge cases where this fails, but `def parse(s): return json.loads('['+re.sub('([")])\s*(["(])','\g<1>,\g<2>',re.sub('[^()\s]+','"\g<0>"',s)).replace('(','[').replace(')',']')+']')` is a surprisingly robust lisp parser.
See also part 2 https://norvig.com/lispy2.html
I don't think a good learning resource gets worse just because there's a newer alternative.
Gemini did write Lisp-1 interpreter in Linux-assembly the other day. It was ready to implement garbage collection and compiler and all shit, but that was just depressing from human point of view.
If all you care about is the artifact and not the path, there is no reason to do anything.
Use the tool to better yourself, your understanding and push the limits of what is possible. If an Lisp in assembly with GC is now hello world, change what a hard project is.
I see this attitude a lot, and I think it is rooted in a sort of self-centered elitism. Anyone can do it, so why do it? Instead you could have the AI teach you how to implement it yourself with a deep understanding that no human, even if you paid them, would put up with.
But sure, get depressed. But why tho?
just because someone or something else does it better?
https://www.codesections.com/blog/raku-lisp-impression/
Illuminating experience and it will also help you see (among many other things) the parentheses in a different light.
Needless to say that was my opinion and every day I think, more and more, how right he was.
(later I did make some gui apps that included scripting and chose s-expr syntax because of how simple it is to implement it)
1) Humans are not that equipped to handle that level of nesting without some other aid, this is why Lisp code is usually indented.
2) Parentheses aren't just about grouping, and this is unintuitive. For example, x is not the same as (x). This is a bit like in set theory where x is not the same as {x}, but parentheses do not look like the kind of sign that would work like that.
had brackets been displayed as curly braces in C - everything would look much more manageable