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

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

Expand Messages
  • Rob Nagler
    ... Yes, imo. Most careers are, I would think. Rob
    Message 1 of 9 , Apr 1 7:49 AM
    • 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 2 of 9 , Apr 1 8:52 AM
      • 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 3 of 9 , Apr 1 1:45 PM
        • 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.