Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14855

The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP (Was: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP
gets totally ignored. A PIP should be backed
by a small number of systems implementing

the proposal. This has implications on what
topic can be chosen and what staff can work
on a PIP. Ask Boris the Loris for the semiotics

of a PoC. Now PIPs have been perverted into
a forum to siphon Money into the Nowhere:

- Some discussions are going on in the PIP
   working group related to synchronize (as a
   lightweight standardize) some aspects
   between Prolog systems.

So PIP has become ISO-2. Its not anymore
a PIP, which would modularly maybe conflicting,
collect proposals. One could very easily

jigsaw different dict efforts into separate
PIPs, when then work inheritly different.
Instead the goal is now "lightweight"

standardizing. It shows in this mess:

Dictionaries in Prolog (dynamic)
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html

Terms with named arguments (static dicts)
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html

Not a proposal at all. Just a big big mess.
Theretically when we assume that a PIP has
already PoCs, namely at least 2 Prolog systems

that implement something.


Bye

Julio Di Egidio schrieb:
> On 27/09/2025 20:10, Mild Shock wrote:
> 
>> Lets not forget that SWI-Prolog is now doomed
>> to have professional moron Julio Di Egidio
>> on board. Lets see what he says about dicts:
>>
>>   - The syntax <atom>{<key>:<any>,...} for “structs”
>>      (i.e. where the name is the functor name);
>>   - The syntax <var>{<key>:<any>,...} for attributed vars.
>>
>> LoL, I guess he has never heard of unification.
> 
> You just mangle quotes and go out on an insane and
> abusive, even personally abusive, tangent: as usual.
> 
> Welcome back to my kill-file, under the rubric
> stupidity is a moral defect.
> 
> *Plonk*
> 
> -Julio
> 

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

Thread

How SWI-Prolog went down hills Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 19:50 +0200
  Re: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Julio Di Egidio <julio@diegidio.name> - 2025-09-27 20:41 +0200
    The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP (Was: Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:15 +0200
      Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy (Was: The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:24 +0200
        My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse (Was: Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:30 +0200
          SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard (Was: My Citation Source : SWI-Prolog discourse) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:46 +0200
            How to make a tag variable an attributed variable (Was: SWI-Prolog as the gravity of all: Dream Big / Dream Standard) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 14:41 +0200
  Julio Di Egidio has never heard of unification (Was: How SWI-Prolog went down hills) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-27 20:10 +0200

csiph-web