From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu Thu Jul  9 16:20:01 EDT 1992
Article 6384 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!utcsri!rpi!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
>From: Brad Taplin <btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Scheme better than C for AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jun28.230411.13417@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Summary: Learning Scheme, wanna know.
Sender: btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 1992 23:04:03 -0500
Lines: 17

Hello. It seems everyone believes that Lisp-like languages are
better than proceedural languages like C for AI. Why is that?

I suspect that recursion plays a part, but could use specific
examples. Recursion is also possible in C, but not to the same
degree or with the same ease, perhaps? Also, the distinctions
between "live" processes and "dead" data have been said to be
less clear in dialects of Lisp. Does this imply some valuable
sorcery not easily wielded in C yet essential to AI advances?
Examples and natural-language responses would be appreciated.

Perhaps a discussion of what's essential to AI and what's not
(with respect to programming techniques and paradigms) is the
thing I crave, something beyond the many FAQ-level responses.
-- 
btaplin@silver.ucs.indiana.edu or simply btaplin@ucs.indiana.edu will
appreciate your intelligent suggestions, anecdotes, comments & offers.


