Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14633

A case of dumbification by committee membership? (Was: Its all about the money, not about quality)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

?- op(699,xf,>.).
    true.
?- writeq(>(>.(a),b)).
    outputs("a>. >b"), unexpected.
https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/issues/834#issue-3216005033

Why unexpected? The >. is not a terminating period:

/* GNU Prolog 1.5.0 (64 bits) */
?- op(699,xf,>.).
yes
?- X = (a>. > b).
X = (a>. >b)

The period has to be single-standing, no preceeding graphic
characters, to be a candidate for a terminating period.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> In the end Scryer Prolog is a big Dunning
> Kruger pyramid scheme:
> 
> The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in
> which people with limited competence in a particular
> domain overestimate their abilities. It was first
> described by the psychologists David Dunning and
> Justin Kruger in 1999.
> https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger-Effekt
> 
> Its a pyramid scheme, because its based on incompetent
> people on different levels,
> 
> and its all about to grab some money:
> 
> Lisp and Prolog appear in the European
> Commission's eGovernment Benchmark 2025
> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/2994
> 
> Just nonsense, nothing else...
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> An then you have the poor guy who asked
>> the question, and doesn't have a single useful
>> take away. Possibly anyway a payed Ass-Licker:
>>
>> Thank you all for the comments!
>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3004#discussioncomment-13707072 
>>
>>
>> Scryer Prolog is totalla fake nonsense.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Well Ulrich Neumerkel is of course the biggest
>>> quack of all as usual:
>>>
>>>  > > order of clause can only influence termination properties
>>>  > This depends on your definition of termination. There is universal
>>>  > termination and (much rarer) existential termination.
>>>  >
>>>  > In a pure, monotonic program, order of clauses does not even 
>>> influence > universal termination. That is, a goal G_0, false will 
>>> terminate in
>>>  > the very same way regardless of the clause order. (For a goal G_0,
>>>  > false both universal and existential termination are the same.)
>>>
>>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3004#discussioncomment-13704812 
>>>
>>>
>>> Complete idiots, nothing to do with terminations. DCGs
>>> that consume characters do anyway terminate. What is he talking about?
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Woa! This nonsense really made my day:
>>>>
>>>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/discussions/3004
>>>>
>>>> It starts with, where somebody "tried" a declarative DCG
>>>> using constraint logic programming:
>>>>
>>>> number_tail(0, 0) --> [].
>>>> number_tail(Number, DigitsCount) -->
>>>>    ("," | ""),
>>>>    digit(Digit),
>>>>    number_tail(Digits, RestDigitsCount),
>>>>    {
>>>>      DigitsCount #= RestDigitsCount + 1,
>>>>      Number #= Digit * 10 ^ RestDigitsCount + Digits
>>>>    }.
>>>>
>>>> He then noticed that its not deterministic. And since
>>>> it is not deterministic, clause ordering changes the
>>>> result when onced via once/1.
>>>>
>>>> LoL
>>>>
>>>> If DCGs had a cut, one would any way do:
>>>>
>>>> number_tail(Number, DigitsCount) -->
>>>>    ("," | ""),
>>>>    digit(Digit), !,
>>>>    number_tail(Digits, RestDigitsCount),
>>>>    {
>>>>      DigitsCount #= RestDigitsCount + 1,
>>>>      Number #= Digit * 10 ^ RestDigitsCount + Digits
>>>>    }.
>>>> number_tail(0, 0) --> [].
>>>>
>>>> Push the determinancy into the DCG. Otherwise you have
>>>> an explosion of choice points, and a lot of things go
>>>> totally wrong.
>>>>
>>>> But the new DCG standard has no cut (!)/2.
>>>
>>
> 

Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar

Thread

Scryer Prolog totally clueless how DCGs work Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-09 11:33 +0200
  Lets see what the "experts" say (Was: Scryer Prolog totally clueless how DCGs work) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-09 11:36 +0200
    Payed Ass-Lickers all around (Was: Lets see what the "experts" say) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-09 11:38 +0200
      Its all about the money, not about quality (Was: Payed Ass-Lickers all around) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-09 11:42 +0200
        A case of dumbification by committee membership? (Was: Its all about the money, not about quality) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-09 20:01 +0200
    The stack overflow user by the name false (Was: Lets see what the "experts" say) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 11:50 +0200
      The choice is a little arbitrary from one angle (Re: The stack overflow user by the name false) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 11:59 +0200
  Does Scryer Prolog have all tricks up its sleeves? [Occurs Check] (Was: Scryer Prolog totally clueless how DCGs work) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-08-04 19:47 +0200

csiph-web