Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [extremeperl] Logic Programming in Perl -- Just say no

Expand Messages
  • Rob Kinyon
    ... So, programming is an apprenticeship-type career?
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > A budding programmer should be able to realize when the pond she's
      > programming in has grown too small and move on to a larger pond, i.e.,
      > a company which has more experienced programmers. After 10 or 20
      > years of this unglamorous regimen, our startlet will become a star if
      > she has the raw talent and gumption.

      So, programming is an apprenticeship-type career?
    • Rob Nagler
      ... Yes, imo. Most careers are, I would think. Rob
      Message 2 of 9 , Apr 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Rob Kinyon writes:
        > So, programming is an apprenticeship-type career?

        Yes, imo. Most careers are, I would think.

        Rob
      • Curtis Poe
        ... Google better, please. They re building a system in Perl to manage data and benchmarks for symbolic computations, including theorem proving. They are not
        Message 3 of 9 , Apr 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          On Mar 31, 2005, at 10:28 PM, Rob Nagler wrote:

          > >   No one's building theorem proving systems in Perl, to the best of
          > my
          > > knowledge.
          >
          > http://www.symbolicdata.org/
          >
          > Google is your friend:
          >
          > http://www.google.com/search?q=%22theorem+proving%22+perl

          Google better, please. They're building a system in Perl to manage
          data and benchmarks for symbolic computations, including theorem
          proving. They are not doing theorem proving in Perl. I also found it
          interesting to note that several first page links for that query listed
          Prolog directly in the summary, despite you not searching for this
          term. Further, clicking on some of the links that don't list Prolog in
          the summary shows that Prolog is frequently used in this field, but
          Perl is traditionally used for collecting and summarizing the data.
          Fascinating how computer scientists are using different programming
          languages for their relative strengths rather than try to shoehorn
          everything into one language, eh?

          You're making an extraordinary claim and I'm asking what experience you
          have to back it up. You say that a person can achieve "X" by doing "Y"
          and that doing "Z" really isn't necessary. You haven't done Z, so you
          have no *personal* basis with which to compare. Many people (including
          myself) on this list who have done both Y and Z have direct personal
          experience and they disagree with you.

          Cheers,
          Ovid

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Rob Nagler
          ... Woops! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theory-edge/message/9442 mentions a Turing Machine compiler written in Perl. Isn t this close enough? The point is
          Message 4 of 9 , Apr 1, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            Curtis Poe writes:
            > Google better, please. They're building a system in Perl to manage
            > data and benchmarks for symbolic computations, including theorem

            Woops!

            http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theory-edge/message/9442

            mentions a Turing Machine compiler written in Perl. Isn't this close
            enough? The point is that you could do theorem proving in Perl. The
            syntax does not have to be Prolog, and could be very Perl-like.

            > languages for their relative strengths rather than try to shoehorn
            > everything into one language, eh?

            I never said people didn't use different languages. For example,
            Python and Perl are quite similar. However, if you know Python, you
            have all the tools and community you need to learn all the important
            principles in computer science. If you come by them by someone making
            a DSL that looks and smells like Prolog, you came about it through
            your community. You don't need to learn Prolog separately. You get
            he concepts, including how the language and interpreter are structured
            through a package implemented in your own language. It's like
            learning philosophy from translated versions of the originals. It's
            still valid knowledge acquisition without leaving your native tongue.
            You might bring in words such as Gestalt and Zeitgeist, but that's not
            speaking or learning the language. Just a few important idioms
            provided through the translation.

            > You're making an extraordinary claim and I'm asking what experience you
            > have to back it up. You say that a person can achieve "X" by doing "Y"
            > and that doing "Z" really isn't necessary. You haven't done Z, so you
            > have no *personal* basis with which to compare. Many people (including
            > myself) on this list who have done both Y and Z have direct personal
            > experience and they disagree with you.

            There are a lot of interesting issues in the above paragraph. Trust
            relationships are mathematical proofs based on axioms. Whatever I
            write on this list is axiomatic. There is no way to prove or disprove
            the claims. Complex trust delegations, such as, reputation, are based
            on the ill-founded theory that the delegate is an appropriate
            surrogate for your model of "doing". For example, most students who
            have taken a comparative language course think they have "done" Lisp
            and Smalltalk. BTW, this is why references and interviews are bad
            predictors of future performance. It's too easy to lie, fool a
            reference, or even collude with a reference.

            Rob
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.