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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14632

Its all about the money, not about quality (Was: Payed Ass-Lickers all around)

Show all headers | View raw

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