5 ms·

MYCIN is a fuzzy logic inference engine, among the first ones. Would love to see that implemented in period-true Prolog, but tbh won't hold my breath. RLL-1 an

by varjag 8y ago

MYCIN is a fuzzy logic inference engine, among the first ones. Would love to see that implemented in period-true Prolog, but tbh won't hold my breath. RLL-1 and Microplanner are domain-specific languages, traditional Lisp approach to building complex applications. Fact is both were written in Lisp, that's just sophistry. Neither AM nor EURISKO would map naturally to unification with their very special heuristic-driven task prioritizing and scheduling algorithms.

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
I don't know what "period-true Prolog" is. You can still run programs found in Prolog textbooks from the 1970's in modern Prolog interpreters- just like with Lisp. >> Fact is both were written in Lisp, that's just sophistry. I don't see the sophistry. If I implement Lisp in Prolog, the interpreter may be Prolog, but the programs it then evaluates are Lisp. I don't see why unification would be an impediment in implementing any heuristics or scheduling algorithms.
- varjag 8y ago
  Period-true as in from 1970s. There were attempts to build fuzzy Prolog dialects in late 1980s, although it seems not particularly successful. > If I implement Lisp in Prolog, the interpreter may be Prolog, but the programs it then evaluates are Lisp. But it does not implement Lisp in Prolog. It implements a domain specific language in Lisp in a time proven manner. Googling "DSL Lisp" will give you probably hundreds of references. I did it before for my own projects and my "languages" even had no name. I could call it VARLANG-22 or whatever, but unless I told you all you'd see is some Lisp code. > I don't see why unification would be an impediment in implementing any heuristics or scheduling algorithms. It does not bring anything to the table there, because that's not how those systems work. Not every project is a first order predicate logic expression, as incredible as it sounds.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
    We're in a weird situation here. In this thread, you're arguing that a programming language implemented in Lisp, which retains the syntax of Lisp, is a DSL, and so still just Lisp; but in the other thread, you're arguing that Prolog implemented in Lisp, with the syntax of Lisp, is not a DSL, but Prolog. I recognise that the above comes across as an attempt at sophistry, again, but I sincerely think you are not being objective, with this line of thinking.

by varjag 8y ago

YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago

I don't know what "period-true Prolog" is. You can still run programs found in Prolog textbooks from the 1970's in modern Prolog interpreters- just like with Lisp. >> Fact is both were written in Lisp, that's just sophistry. I don't see the sophistry. If I implement Lisp in Prolog, the interpreter may be Prolog, but the programs it then evaluates are Lisp. I don't see why unification would be an impediment in implementing any heuristics or scheduling algorithms.

varjag 8y ago
Period-true as in from 1970s. There were attempts to build fuzzy Prolog dialects in late 1980s, although it seems not particularly successful. > If I implement Lisp in Prolog, the interpreter may be Prolog, but the programs it then evaluates are Lisp. But it does not implement Lisp in Prolog. It implements a domain specific language in Lisp in a time proven manner. Googling "DSL Lisp" will give you probably hundreds of references. I did it before for my own projects and my "languages" even had no name. I could call it VARLANG-22 or whatever, but unless I told you all you'd see is some Lisp code. > I don't see why unification would be an impediment in implementing any heuristics or scheduling algorithms. It does not bring anything to the table there, because that's not how those systems work. Not every project is a first order predicate logic expression, as incredible as it sounds.
- YeGoblynQueenne 8y ago
  We're in a weird situation here. In this thread, you're arguing that a programming language implemented in Lisp, which retains the syntax of Lisp, is a DSL, and so still just Lisp; but in the other thread, you're arguing that Prolog implemented in Lisp, with the syntax of Lisp, is not a DSL, but Prolog. I recognise that the above comes across as an attempt at sophistry, again, but I sincerely think you are not being objective, with this line of thinking.