discarded1023

6 ms·

31.
by discarded1023 3y ago
Enjoy it mate, and all the other fat Brunners. (His Stand on Zanzibar is most of Gibson's Neuromancer ... more than a decade before.) Give the thin ones a miss.
32.
by discarded1023 3y ago
On a related note, for those who don't mind reading 17k words on industrial decline, is Ian Jack's great take on (civilian) shipbuilding in Glasgow. The relevance to TFA is the difficulty of recovering the arts of ship constructio
33.
by discarded1023 3y ago
I wonder how this relates to the old combinator-based approaches of Peter Henderson [1] and the logic-programming version [2]. Guy Cousineau also had a go with "Functional programming and geometry" in the late 1990s. I guess we&#x
34.
by discarded1023 3y ago
The author, Larry Paulson, may or may not like ZF but he has a ton of experience in doing formal proofs in it. https://isabelle.in.tum.de/website-Isabelle2020/dist/library...
35.
by discarded1023 3y ago
The standard arithmetic classes of Isabelle/HOL show that you can extend division with the equation `x / 0 = 0` and things (seemingly) work out. https://lawrencecpaulson.github.io/2021/12/01/Undefine
36.
by discarded1023 3y ago
A cognate of this is what Gernot Heiser of seL4 fame calls the "McNamara Effect" on his homepage: https://gernot-heiser.org/ > The first step is to measure whatever can be easily measured. This is ok as far as
37.
by discarded1023 3y ago
> I want a good notation for state machines that is similar to EBNF. If this isn't a firm requirement, perhaps you can dig into the venerable state machine notations of yesteryear. For instance ARGOS [1] and StateCharts [2]. The lat
38.
by discarded1023 3y ago
I don't disagree with what you say here, but ... I'm coming at it from a formal semantics point of view. (I find Prolog and indeed "logic programming" in a larger sense to be all promise and little delivery on this front
39.
by discarded1023 3y ago
Higher order functions! -- in Prolog! oh my. Prolog has predicates, not functions. (It has uninterpreted function symbols -- aka functors in this context.) It's based on first-order logic, i.e., it has nothing higher order in it, if yo
40.
by discarded1023 3y ago
I don't disagree with your stance but one of the most beautiful things to come from this line of work was Ehud Shapiro's declarative debugging [1]. I'd recommend taking a look at his PhD thesis if you're at all intereste
41.
by discarded1023 3y ago
I learnt as an undergrad that every sufficiently large program contains a type system (in the loose PL sense of operations requiring arguments of certain sorts) ... now that can be provided by the language or in an ad hoc way by the program
42.
by discarded1023 3y ago
There was a lot of work done in the 1980s and 1990s on deductive databases. Somehow it didn't work out. See [1] for a survey from 1995 (coauthored by the most cited guy in CS). There is also the semantic web with its query technology.
43.
by discarded1023 3y ago
What do you mean by "misappropriated"? You can try running with what wikipedia says [1] or stack overflow [2]. You could say it's PL marketing terminology from the 1980s and 1990s (FP + Prolog v the world). Roughly these lang
44.
by discarded1023 3y ago
There appears to be a lot of activity around minikanren [1]. Personally I'm so used to having a powerful metalanguage around (lambda calculus plus or minus a bit) that I can't imagine programming in pure Prolog any more. Which is
45.
by discarded1023 3y ago
> Prolog also requires you to understand the execution model before you can do much of anything. This is true of most (all?) languages. Prolog's control flow is ultimately not too different from the usual stack-based semantics peopl
46.
by discarded1023 3y ago
Prolog has many issues; for instance the lack of types and mode declarations, and backtracking almost never being what you want. This was addressed in Mercury [1] but much of the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. (IMHO Mercury ultimat
47.
by discarded1023 4y ago
Indeed! Gall's SYSTEMANTICS [1] is worth a read in its entirety. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
48.
by discarded1023 4y ago
Try Standard ML or ocaml. You may be surprised how far the module system can take you, and how limited type classes really are for expressing abstractions. On a different vector, you can see the same story -- type classes are convenient but
49.
by discarded1023 4y ago
So many memories! But how many of you are a god of twenty-first century computer science? https://www.geocities.ws/robrich18/Larry.html
50.
by discarded1023 4y ago
Like the strict MLs (ocaml, Standard ML, F#, ...), while Lisp and Scheme can express the Haskell idioms it lacks the pervasive laziness that makes them (somewhat) efficient. For instance one might write `zip [0..] xs` to number the list `xs
51.
by discarded1023 4y ago
"Red Plenty" by Francis Spufford. Many pointers from Google: https://www.google.com/search?q=red+plenty It's a fictionalised history of some Soviet economics. There's a chapter on Kantorovich (cf the sib
52.
by discarded1023 4y ago
Not to dispute your points in any substantial way but the fundamental R&D for China's solar panel industry was substantially funded by the Australian tax payer. See, for instance https://www.abc.net.au/news/sci