= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
BloodyShrimp comments on Prisoner's dilemma tournament results - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (122)
Most of these suggestions are okay, but don't move away from Lisp. A very restricted Scheme (e.g. one way to set variables, one looping construct (I really like foldl, as N shows), etc.) would be good; the lexical scoping and general immutability make it one of the best Lisps for our purposes.
+1 for restricted Scheme. I suggest restricted Python because it is more accessible and would allow more people to participate, but personally I like Scheme a bit more.
On the other hand, many many people were turned off by Scheme last time, and few of them will be reading this post. I'd like to give them a shot, if only to get a more diverse crowd.
On looping constructs: Would that buy us anything? What if people use recursion for looping? Should we restrict recursion?
Question for the audience: would there be a benefit to using a programming language that allows only primitive recursive functions?
I think a programming language that only allows primitive recursion is a bad idea. One common pattern (which I think we want to allow) was for bots to simulate their opponents, which entails the ability to simulate arbitrary valid code. This would not be possible in a language which restricts to primitive recursion.