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

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

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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



      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.

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