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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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.