<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Concurrent Lexicalized Dependency Parsing: The ParseTalk Model · HackerPapers discussions</title><link>https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cmp-lg_9410017/</link><description>Collected HN comments and submissions linking this paper.</description><language>en</language><lastBuildDate>Mon, 02 Nov 2026 11:16:22 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cmp-lg_9410017/feed.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><item><title>Concurrent Lexicalized Dependency Parsing: The ParseTalk Model — mentioned by BeefWellington</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30803517</link><guid isPermaLink="false">urn:hackerpapers:mention:cmp-lg_9410017:30803517</guid><pubDate>Fri, 25 Mar 2022 15:43:52 GMT</pubDate><description>&lt;p&gt;&amp;gt; OK, I am waiting for you to propose a basic language parser that can do it. There&amp;#x27;s a reason we&amp;#x27;re only now having this debate - it was unconceivable 5 years ago, in the era of basic language parsers. This is really untrue. In fact, making &amp;quot;English as a programming language&amp;quot; was a goal of many older programming languages such as COBOL[1], BASIC, and PASCAL as early as the 60s. It&amp;#x27;s hardly a new idea and was hardly inconceivable &amp;quot;5 years ago&amp;quot; for something to output a programming language. The sentence example here could easily be broken down by the ParseTalk model from the mid-90s[2].…&lt;/p&gt;&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="https://hackerpaper.kaipfister.de/p/cmp-lg_9410017/"&gt;Paper and discussion history&lt;/a&gt;. A mention is not an endorsement.&lt;/p&gt;</description><category>cs.CL</category></item></channel></rss>
