Oi -
Completely and utterly new to Lisp, but it (or Prolog) has been recommended
as the language to write/design a lexical analysis tool that I need (because
apparently it doesn't exist, or not in the form that I need it to analyze).
Pattern matching, et al. Wandered over to Quantum Books (cambridge) but I
saw no O'reilly book (the standard for when I need a quick/dirty approach to
a language) on prolog or lisp. Recommendations for learning not-in-classroom
(that requiring more time than I currently have)?
(Im digging through Blackwell's "Programming for Linguistics: Perl" atm to
see if that has any answers)
Much thanks.
Jessamyn
Jessamyn Hodge wrote:
> Oi -
>
> Completely and utterly new to Lisp, but it (or Prolog) has been recommended
> as the language to write/design a lexical analysis tool that I need (because
> apparently it doesn't exist, or not in the form that I need it to analyze).
> Pattern matching, et al. Wandered over to Quantum Books (cambridge) but I
> saw no O'reilly book (the standard for when I need a quick/dirty approach to
> a language) on prolog or lisp. Recommendations for learning not-in-classroom
> (that requiring more time than I currently have)?
>
> (Im digging through Blackwell's "Programming for Linguistics: Perl" atm to
> see if that has any answers)
Problem with english parsing traditionally that much input ill-formed.
Suggest brush-up on english before moving on to computer oriented. May I
buy a verb?
--
Cameron MacKinnon
Toronto, Canada
"Jessamyn Hodge" <········@mit.edu> writes:
> Recommendations for learning not-in-classroom
> (that requiring more time than I currently have)?
Practical Common Lisp
http://www.gigamonkeys.com/book/
Successful Lisp
http://www.psg.com/~dlamkins/sl/contents.html
ANSI Common Lisp
http://www.paulgraham.com/books.html
Paradigms of AI Programming
http://norvig.com/paip.html
CLiki
http://www.cliki.net/
--
;; Matthew Danish -- user: mrd domain: cmu.edu
;; OpenPGP public key: C24B6010 on keyring.debian.org
"Jessamyn Hodge" <········@mit.edu> wrote in message
····························@senator-bedfellow.mit.edu...
> Oi -
>
> Completely and utterly new to Lisp, but it (or Prolog) has been
recommended
> as the language to write/design a lexical analysis tool that I need
(because
> apparently it doesn't exist, or not in the form that I need it to
analyze).
> Pattern matching, et al. Wandered over to Quantum Books (cambridge) but I
> saw no O'reilly book (the standard for when I need a quick/dirty approach
to
> a language) on prolog or lisp. Recommendations for learning
not-in-classroom
> (that requiring more time than I currently have)?
>
> (Im digging through Blackwell's "Programming for Linguistics: Perl" atm to
> see if that has any answers)
>
> Much thanks.
>
> Jessamyn
>
Besides the other couple of good suggestions you have received from other
responders I would also recommend that you try NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING
IN LISP: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS by Gerald Gazdar and
Chris Mellish, Addison-Wesley 1989. A bit old IF compared to some of the
more modern Lisp books but it is very domain-specific as to what you are
looking for.
The same authors have written a Prolog variation of the book as well:
NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING IN PROLOG: AN INTRODUCTION TO COMPUTATIONAL
LINGUISTICS by Gerald Gazdar and Chris Mellish, Addison-Wesley 1989.
Michael Covington's book is also a good bet: NATURAL LANGUAGE PROCESSING FOR
PROLOG PROGRAMMERS, Prentice-Hall 1993.
A friendly piece of advice (if I may) is that you should make sure that you
understand the theory before you try to implement NLP. In other words,
computational linguistics, statistical or non-statistical processing, etc. I
have seen people dive feet first into the NLP only to drown in
augmented-tree grammars etc. without a clue. Lisp is the design and
implementation tool but not the underlying linguistics theoretical
formalism.
Panos C. Lekkas
Jessamyn Hodge wrote:
> Completely and utterly new to Lisp, but it (or Prolog) has been recommended
> as the language to write/design a lexical analysis tool that I need (because
> apparently it doesn't exist, or not in the form that I need it to analyze).
> Pattern matching, et al. Wandered over to Quantum Books (cambridge) but I
> saw no O'reilly book (the standard for when I need a quick/dirty approach to
> a language) on prolog or lisp. Recommendations for learning not-in-classroom
> (that requiring more time than I currently have)?
O'Reilly has a policy of not publishing books on Lisp.
It's not entirely clear why. I don't think they have a
no-Prolog policy, but Prolog is even more of a minority
language than Lisp is.
You should have a look at Norvig's "Paradigms of Artificial
Intelligence Programming" if you're talking about parsing
natural languages. If you mean something with a simple
formal grammar like a computer language then yes, you
can do it just fine in Lisp and probably also in Prolog,
but other languages you're more familiar with might do
the job quite competently too. (You'd do well to learn
Lisp and Prolog anyway, but the urgent need might not be
there.)
PAIP isn't particularly an introduction to Lisp, though
you might be able to use it that way. I'm no expert on
the introductory Lisp material out there. Peter Seibel's
"Practical Common Lisp" (still in draft form, available
on the web for free) is rather good, but may be *too*
"practical" in focus for your taste.
--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc
Perhaps lisp books don't make much money...?
Gareth McCaughan wrote:
> Jessamyn Hodge wrote:
>
>
>>Completely and utterly new to Lisp, but it (or Prolog) has been recommended
>>as the language to write/design a lexical analysis tool that I need (because
>>apparently it doesn't exist, or not in the form that I need it to analyze).
>>Pattern matching, et al. Wandered over to Quantum Books (cambridge) but I
>>saw no O'reilly book (the standard for when I need a quick/dirty approach to
>>a language) on prolog or lisp. Recommendations for learning not-in-classroom
>>(that requiring more time than I currently have)?
>
>
> O'Reilly has a policy of not publishing books on Lisp.
> It's not entirely clear why. I don't think they have a
> no-Prolog policy, but Prolog is even more of a minority
> language than Lisp is.
>
> You should have a look at Norvig's "Paradigms of Artificial
> Intelligence Programming" if you're talking about parsing
> natural languages. If you mean something with a simple
> formal grammar like a computer language then yes, you
> can do it just fine in Lisp and probably also in Prolog,
> but other languages you're more familiar with might do
> the job quite competently too. (You'd do well to learn
> Lisp and Prolog anyway, but the urgent need might not be
> there.)
>
> PAIP isn't particularly an introduction to Lisp, though
> you might be able to use it that way. I'm no expert on
> the introductory Lisp material out there. Peter Seibel's
> "Practical Common Lisp" (still in draft form, available
> on the web for free) is rather good, but may be *too*
> "practical" in focus for your taste.
>
Why would anyone want to read a book on Common Lisp programming when
you have such gems as the hyperspec? A newbie who never programmed or
read a book about algorithms could just sit down and read the whole
hyperspec in a matter of days, memorize it and become an 31337 Lisp h4x0r.
--
"I hate sharing the information superhighway with freeware loving Apache users"
-- Mike Cox
Lowell Kirsh <······@cs.ubc.ca> writes:
> Perhaps lisp books don't make much money...?
There must be some money in them. Paul Graham posted here a short
while ago saying that a reprint of OnLisp is in the works.
--
An ideal world is left as an excercise to the reader.
--- Paul Graham, On Lisp 8.1
David Steuber wrote:
> Lowell Kirsh <······@cs.ubc.ca> writes:
>
>> Perhaps lisp books don't make much money...?
>
> There must be some money in them. Paul Graham posted here a short
> while ago saying that a reprint of OnLisp is in the works.
>
Ah, right.
Does PG actually *need* money...?
Gareth McCaughan escreveu:
> Jessamyn Hodge wrote:
>
[snipped]
>
> O'Reilly has a policy of not publishing books on Lisp.
> It's not entirely clear why. I don't think they have a
> no-Prolog policy, but Prolog is even more of a minority
> language than Lisp is.
Sorry for a direct question, but is there any evidence on this or is an
urban legend?
Understanding this can enlight the discussion on other threads1
TIA
--
Cesar Rabak
>>>>> "CR" == Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
[...]
CR> Sorry for a direct question, but is there any evidence on this
CR> or is an urban legend? [...]
It is no urban legend:
"We're NOT looking for:
* Books that overlap too heavily with our existing books.
* Books on proprietary technologies that don't have a huge user base.
* Clever new marketing spins on an old topic.
* Certification books, in most cases.
* Books on miniscule (i.e., personal or nascent) products, even if they are open source.
* Any books on LISP, LaTeX, or Web-based training. ..."
http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/author/writeforus_1101.html
cheers,
BM
Bulent Murtezaoglu escreveu:
>>>>>>"CR" == Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
>>>>>
> [...]
> CR> Sorry for a direct question, but is there any evidence on this
> CR> or is an urban legend? [...]
>
> It is no urban legend:
>
> "We're NOT looking for:
>
> * Books that overlap too heavily with our existing books.
> * Books on proprietary technologies that don't have a huge user base.
> * Clever new marketing spins on an old topic.
> * Certification books, in most cases.
> * Books on miniscule (i.e., personal or nascent) products, even if they are open source.
> * Any books on LISP, LaTeX, or Web-based training. ..."
>
> http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/author/writeforus_1101.html
>
Thanks, although the news is a bit sad :-(
Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
> Bulent Murtezaoglu escreveu:
>>>>>>>"CR" == Cesar Rabak <······@acm.org> writes:
>>>>>>
>> [...]
>> CR> Sorry for a direct question, but is there any evidence on this
>> CR> or is an urban legend? [...]
>> It is no urban legend:
[...]
>> * Any books on LISP, LaTeX, or Web-based training. ..."
>> http://www.oreilly.com/oreilly/author/writeforus_1101.html
>>
>
> Thanks, although the news is a bit sad :-(
I don't know if it is on that page, but they say somewhere that they
are not interested in publishing for markets which are small despite
the fact that there exists excelent literature. I presume that if the
"Lisp market" ever grows large enough in their eyes, they would also
publish Lisp books.
Personally, I could not care less.
Mario S. Mommer wrote:
>
> Personally, I could not care less.
Funny enough, they do publish some books chock-full of lisp code though,
though it is only emacs lisp...
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 21:00:52 +0100, David Golden <············@oceanfree.net> wrote:
> Funny enough, they [O'Reilly] do publish some books chock-full of
> lisp code though, though it is only emacs lisp...
I was about to reply that they haven't updated these books for years
and are still at Emacs 19 or so but I just checked and it looks like
"Learning GNU Emacs" will get an update for 21.3 in December.
However, Bob Glickstein's wonderful Giraffe book (one of my personal
favorites) is still out of print and no update in sight... :(
Edi.
--
Lisp is not dead, it just smells funny.
Real email: (replace (subseq ·········@agharta.de" 5) "edi")
On Fri, 22 Oct 2004 22:35:29 +0200, <········@agharta.de> wrote:
>
> However, Bob Glickstein's wonderful Giraffe book (one of my personal
> favorites) is still out of print and no update in sight... :(
Got one of those myself.
--
Brownian motion is correctly colored.