Re: Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP work

[Steven Bethard <st...@gmail.com>]

On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mc...@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

Re: Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP work

[Karthik Sarma <ks...@ksarma.com>]

Amazon govcloud is likely HIPAA-able, though I also have my reservations

On Friday, January 31, 2014, Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>
wrote:

> I'm sure that REST services have their place in the world, but I sure
> hope that NLP will not move more and more to the cloud.
>
> Consider running a business processing confidential or sensitive data
> with NLP. I'd not at all feel comfortable contracting third-party
> web-services to do that processing for me. I may consider running a
> private cloud at some cloud hosting service, but actually, I may most
> probably tend to set up a private in-house cloud or cluster.
>
> Within research, there have been studies that web services are
> detrimental to reproducibility [1,2]. Services change or become
> unavailable, which can make it difficult to impossible to reproduce
> experimental results.
>
> I sure hope that NLP tools will continue to be distributed as portable
> software. Of course, REST in *addition* to underlying portable
> software and resources are a fine thing.
>
> Cheers,
>
> -- Richard
>
> [1] How Reliable is Your workflow: Monitoring Decay in Scholarly
> Publications
> J. M. Gómez-Pérez and E. Garcia-Cuesta and J. Zhao and A. Garrido and J.
> E. Ruiz and G. Klyne
>     75  (2013)
>
> [2] Best practices for workflow design: how to prevent workflow decay
> K. M. Hettne and K. Wolstencroft and K. Belhajjame and C. A. Goble and E.
> Mina and H. Dharuri and D. De Roure and L. Verdes-Montenegro and J. Garrido
> and M. Roos
>       (2012)
>
>
> On 31.01.2014, at 10:24, andy mcmurry <mcmurry.andy@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> wrote:
>
> > 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.bethard@gmail.com <javascript:;>>wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mcmurry.andy@gmail.com<javascript:;>
> >
> >> 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
>


-- 




--
Karthik Sarma
UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20??
Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab
Member, CA Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical
Association
ksarma@ksarma.com
gchat: ksarma@gmail.com
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma

Re: Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP work

[Richard Eckart de Castilho <re...@apache.org>]

I'm sure that REST services have their place in the world, but I sure
hope that NLP will not move more and more to the cloud.

Consider running a business processing confidential or sensitive data 
with NLP. I'd not at all feel comfortable contracting third-party
web-services to do that processing for me. I may consider running a
private cloud at some cloud hosting service, but actually, I may most
probably tend to set up a private in-house cloud or cluster.

Within research, there have been studies that web services are
detrimental to reproducibility [1,2]. Services change or become 
unavailable, which can make it difficult to impossible to reproduce
experimental results.

I sure hope that NLP tools will continue to be distributed as portable
software. Of course, REST in *addition* to underlying portable 
software and resources are a fine thing.

Cheers,

-- Richard

[1] How Reliable is Your workflow: Monitoring Decay in Scholarly Publications
J. M. Gómez-Pérez and E. Garcia-Cuesta and J. Zhao and A. Garrido and J. E. Ruiz and G. Klyne
    75  (2013)

[2] Best practices for workflow design: how to prevent workflow decay
K. M. Hettne and K. Wolstencroft and K. Belhajjame and C. A. Goble and E. Mina and H. Dharuri and D. De Roure and L. Verdes-Montenegro and J. Garrido and M. Roos
      (2012)


On 31.01.2014, at 10:24, andy mcmurry <mc...@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 <st...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mc...@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

Re: Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP work

[andy mcmurry <mc...@gmail.com>]

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 <st...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mc...@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
>

Re: Clojure, having its origins in LISP, is a better fit for serious NLP work

[Karthik Sarma <ks...@ksarma.com>]

+1 ... Not that I am a big groovy fan either ;) Perhaps an argument could
be made for LISP based on the breadth of existing work in LISP, though.

On Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Steven Bethard <st...@gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Wed, Jan 29, 2014 at 5:24 AM, andy mcmurry <mcmurry.andy@gmail.com<javascript:;>>
> 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
>


-- 




--
Karthik Sarma
UCLA Medical Scientist Training Program Class of 20??
Member, UCLA Medical Imaging & Informatics Lab
Member, CA Delegation to the House of Delegates of the American Medical
Association
ksarma@ksarma.com
gchat: ksarma@gmail.com
linkedin: www.linkedin.com/in/ksarma