I completely agree. Pure functional programming has the benefit of being immutable which is nice for parallel computing. Clojure/Haskell are both purely functional, whereas Scala can be written functionally if the author chooses. They are all good languages.
Groovy also has its place. Groovy is wonderfully simple, especially for "*getting started*" examples for new users familiar with Java. REST would really demystify things (I hope). I'm not a big proponent of "cloud" services, but I imagine more and more NLP processing will up on Amazon with REST calls. --AndyMC On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Steven Bethard <steven.beth...@gmail.com>wrote: > On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mcmurry.a...@gmail.com> > 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 >
