World was created in the Lisp code - song Lyrics by Bob Kanefsky, sung by Julia Ecklar.
Lyrics

Once in a while, a new language manages to reach all the way to Lisp.
And then it wakes up and finds it's not a new language at all, it's just another dialect of Lisp.

In recognition of the contribution of the Polish mathematicians to the world science, the Senate of Poland has adopted a resolution stating the year 2019 will be celebrated as the Year of Mathematics.

The most outstanding genius of all them, Stefan Banach (space theory), never got any distinction, until the PHD, which was given to him on a corridor, by a commission who came in disguise, and someone else was asking him some difficult mathematical questions.

Maybe he a was a precursor of a today's economy, where a creativity matters, rather than schools. But the truth is that he was doing mathematics all the time, even in a famous "Scotch Bar" in Lviv (now Ukraine) , where the restaurant tables were used for writing the breakthrough formulas.

This was a great LIFE.

We are aiming to continue the Banach's story, and to create "the Polish School of the Artificial Intelligence".
(There is much bigger choice of liquors now, so there is even a chance to excel. The robots will be sober, anyway... : ).

* Directed Acyclic Graphs

* Genetic Programming

* Machine Learning

* Neural Networks

One of the most funny paradoxes in a whole programming is that the Lisp language, which consists of a parenthesis, is also using a polish notation, which was actually invented to get rid of the parenthesis....

A quotation from a paper by Jan Łukasiewicz, Remarks on Nicod's Axiom and on "Generalizing Deduction", page 180, states how the notation was invented:

"I came upon the idea of a parenthesis-free notation in 1924. I used that notation for the first time in my article Łukasiewicz(1), p. 610, footnote."

Polish notation: + 3 4 5

Common Lisp: (+ 3 4 5)

It was a stroke of genius by John McCarthy (1927-2011), a famous creator of Lisp, and inventor of a term: "Artificial Intelligence".


Quotes on Lisp.

Alan Kay

"Lisp is the Maxwell’s equations of software .

"The greatest single programming language ever designed."

Don't worry about what anybody else is going to do. The best way to predict the future is to invent it."


Gregory Chaintin

"Lisp is the only language, which I can proof my theories in."

Francis Sergeraert

"Lisp is a mathematical object, one of the most beautiful and productive at this time.
A descendant of the fantastic lambda-calculus, designed by Church to produce on of the deepest mathematical results, namely the negative answer to Hilbert's Entscheidung Problem: no algorithm can determine whether an arbitrary mathematical statement is true, false, or undecidable."

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

For the programmers who use a different languages, from a fantastic book by Douglas Hoyte "Let over lambda".

Lisp Is Not Functional

One of the most common mischaracterisations of lisp is calling it a functional programming language. Lisp is not functional. In fact it can be argued that lisp is one of the least functional languages ever created. This misunderstanding has interesting roots and is a good example of how a small misnomer can have long-lasting influence and end up causing confusion long after the reasons behind the misnomer have passed into irrelevance. What is a functional language? The only definition that makes sense is:

A functional language is a programming language made up of functions.

So what is a function? A function is a concept from math that has been with us for centuries:

A function is a static, well-defined mapping from input values to output values.

It seems like we use defun to define new functions in lisp. For example, the following seems to be a function that uses summation to map the set of all numbers to a new set, one that also includes all numbers:

(defun adder (x)
  (+ x 1))

Obviously we can apply this object to any number and get the mapped result from its return value, but is adder really a function? Well, confusingly, lisp tells us that it is:

* (describe #'adder)

#<Interpreted Function> is a function.

But calling this object a function is one of the deepest-rooted misnomers in lisp history. What defun and lambda forms actually create are procedures or, more accurately still, funcallable instances^[AMOP]. Why the distinction? Procedures don't necessarily have anything to do with mapping values, but instead are pieces of code, possibly with stored environment, that can be executed (funcalled). When lisp programmers write in a certain style called functional style, then the resulting procedures can be thought of and combined together pretending that they are math-style functional maps.

The reason why lisp is so often incorrectly described as a functional language has to do with history. Believe it or not but there was once a time when most languages didn't even support the concept of a procedure that modern programmers in any language take for granted. Very early languages didn't provide a suitable abstraction for locally naming arguments in a piece of re-usable code and programmers had to manually allocate registers and manipulate stacks to achieve this behaviour. Lisp, a language that had procedures all along, seemed way more functional than these languages.

Next, once procedural abstraction was given the attention it deserved and incorporated into almost all programming languages, people started to slowly run up against barriers due to the limited nature of the procedures they had implemented. Programmers started to realise that they would like to be able to return procedures from other procedures, embed them in new environments, aggregate them in data-structures, and, in general, treat them as any old regular value. A slogan sprang up to mobilise programmers for this next big abstraction push: a society without classes, first-class procedures. In comparison to languages that relegated the procedure to an inferior second class, lisp, a language that has had these first-class procedures all along, seemed way more functional.

Finally, many languages make a pointless distinction between expression and statement, usually to support some horrible Blub syntax like infix assignment. In lisp, everything returns something² and there are no (syntactic) restrictions on what you can nest or combine. It is a simple question with an obvious answer: what is more important in a language, newbie-friendly syntax or real flexibility? Any language that uses infix syntax is reducing the possibilities of its abstractions in many ways. Luckily most modern languages have decided to trust their users enough to allow them to combine expressions mostly as they see fit. In comparison to languages that make these sorts of brain-dead syntax decisions, lisp seems way more functional.