Boris / EricGT: Why dont you tap into TAP? (Was: Boris the Loris and the American Fuzzy Lop)

From	Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups	comp.lang.prolog
Subject	Boris / EricGT: Why dont you tap into TAP? (Was: Boris the Loris and the American Fuzzy Lop)
Date	2025-11-18 23:00 +0100
Message-ID	<10fiqaa$8391$1@solani.org> (permalink)
References	<10bam8b$6mq5$1@solani.org> <10bdmf8$8gn7$1@solani.org> <10bdoha$8i14$1@solani.org>

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Now my post is gone, still nobody knows how
fuzzy testing works in logic programming:

Using SWI-Prolog PLUnit for Fuzzy Testing - Nice to know
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/using-swi-prolog-plunit-for-fuzzy-testing/9220

Instead some bogus claim by EricGT, that
coverage would make it better. I even don't
understand what he wants to say, was this

written by an early Chat GPT-2 ? Is this even English?

The issue emerged when using code coverage (via 
library(prolog_coverage)) alongside a comprehensive set of unit tests 
(in a *.plt file, also generated by the LLM),
while aiming for 100% code coverage of a knowledge
base built with library(persistency). Without
striving for full coverage, the problem likely
wouldn’t have been detected so quickly.
https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/llm-generated-code-with-hallucinated-predicate-options/9391

Code coverage only measures reached code locations,
the typical tools doesn't measure the call value
patterns, of the invoke procedures, the SWI-Prolog

tooling for logic programming isn't any different.
You only see some call counts of the Byrd Box model
ports. Which says practialy not about an example

such as option value [access(readonly)].

Bye

P.S.: Hey EricGT and Boris, why dont you tap into TAP?

Since 2007, the Test and Proof (TAP) conference has
long been a leading venue for research on the
intersection of dynamic analyses, in particular
software testing, and formal verification.
https://conf.researchr.org/track/fm-2026/fm-2026-tap

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Information for Boris the Loris, chief grammar
> Nazi of SWI-Prolog discourse. Here is a summary
> of my No Fuzz(y) declaration for the
> 
> Trealla & Co. benchmarking from my previous post:
> 
> - No fuzzy logic involved.
>    Its all binary.
> 
> - No fuzzy testing involved.
>    Its all manual testing.
> 
> - No fuzz testing involved.
>    See above fuzzy testig.
> 
> - No fuzzing test involved.
>    See above fuzzy testig.
> 
> What about the American Fuzzy Lop (AFL),
> a free software fuzzer:
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop_%28software%29
> 
> Or was a breed of rabbit, by the
> the name American Fuzzy Lop involved?
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Fuzzy_Lop
> 
> No neither of the 2 AFLs were involved.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now I have the feeling that Trealla implements
>> the extreme of Jaffar's Unification, to the extend
>> that it keeps and trails functor linking? Was
>>
>> studying the source of Trealla . Have also the
>> impression that it uses a very large native stack.
>> Is this trailing what gave it the name Trealla,
>>
>> despite the geographic beach location with such a name ?
>> BTW: I have new benchmark results (*) = Dogelog:
>>
>> Test | Java (*) | JavaScript (*) | Python (*) | Scryer | Trealla
>> -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | --
>> (=)/2 | 184 | 514 | 1750 | 210 | 53
>> unify_with_occurs_check/2 | 213 | 601 | 2344 | N/A | 53
>> (==)/2 | 95 | 227 | 1265 | 250 | 65
>> compare/3 | 86 | 221 | 1328 | 250 | 65
>> copy_term/2 | 409 | 589 | 2579 | 108 | N/A
>> term_variables/2 | 168 | 318 | 1469 | 166 | 90
>> ground/1 | 40 | 120 | 516 | 70 | 121
>> acyclic_term/1 | 129 | 290 | 1281 | 386 | N/A
>> numbervars/3 | 170 | 327 | 1516 | 164 | 100
>>
>> Pitty `copy_term/2` and `acyclic_term/1` do not
>> yet work with a hydra example.
>>
>> I am using a hydra variant, which puts less
>> pressure on the memory, but does benchmark
>> the built-ins in a loop, so that I see some
>>
>> numbers. My problem was that Trealla was
>> below the 1 ms mesurememt:
>> ```
>> hydra(0, _) :- !.
>> hydra(N, h(X, X)) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X).
>>
>> hydra(0, A, A) :- !.
>> hydra(N, h(X, X), A) :- N > 0, N0 is N-1, hydra(N0, X, A).
>>
>> /* Binary Built-ins */
>> bench :-
>>     hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), X = Y, fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), unify_with_occurs_check(X, Y), fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), X == Y, fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), compare(_, X, Y), fail; true)), fail; true.
>>
>> /* Unary Built-ins */
>> bench2 :-
>>     hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), copy_term(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), term_variables(X-Y,_), fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), ground(X-Y), fail; true)),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), acyclic_term(X-Y), fail; true)),
>>     fail; true.
>>
>> /* Misc Built-ins */
>> bench3 :-
>>     hydra(65536, X), hydra(65536, Y, Y),
>>     time((between(1,64,_), numbervars(X-Y,0,_), fail; true)),
>>     fail; true.
>> ```
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Who will win the new Prolog race?
>>> SWI or Scryer? Is it enough that SWI-Prolog
>>> has teamed up with Ciao Prolog?
>>>
>>> What about resources that really can
>>> code a Prolog systems. SWI-Prolog is
>>> now doomed to have professional moron
>>>
>>> Julio Di Egidio on board. Not sure whether
>>> he will ever become a heavy committer to
>>> SWI-Prolog source. But who knows, we should
>>>
>>> also give Julio Di Egidio a chance. My
>>> gut feeling at the moment:
>>>
>>> - SWI-Prolog:
>>>    Pull Requests 10 Open / 560 Closed
>>>
>>> - Scryer Prolog:
>>>    Pull Requests 40 Open / 751 Closed
>>>
>>> In the past I would measure active committers.
>>> But the new "liveness" indicator of a Prolog
>>> system could be indeed Pull Requests.
>>>
>>> So who will win?
>>>
>>> P.S.: Data sources:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/mthom/scryer-prolog/pulls
>>>
>>> https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/pulls
>>>
>>
>

Thread

Who will win the new Prolog race? SWI or Scryer? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 08:57 +0200
  The only problem is, Rust is shiiiit (Was: Who will win the new Prolog race? SWI or Scryer?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 09:01 +0200
    Recent hybrid: Python beats Rust (Was: The only problem is, Rust is shiiiit) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-28 09:13 +0200
  Trealla drastically beats Scryer [Jaffar's Algorithm] (Re: Who will win the new Prolog race? SWI or Scryer? Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-29 12:19 +0200
    Boris the Loris and the American Fuzzy Lop (Was: Trealla drastically beats Scryer [Jaffar's Algorithm]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-29 12:54 +0200
      Was Boris living under a rock, how many Fuzzy Testing tools? (Was: Boris the Loris and the American Fuzzy Lop) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-29 12:59 +0200
        Not a Nazi-Retard, maybe a payed Troll on Putins payroll (Was: Was Boris living under a rock, how many Fuzzy Testing tools?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-29 13:07 +0200
      Boris / EricGT: Why dont you tap into TAP? (Was: Boris the Loris and the American Fuzzy Lop) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 23:00 +0100
        Closing the abstract interpretation GAP (Re: Boris / EricGT: Why dont you tap into TAP?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-18 23:12 +0100
    Fast, but not correct implementation (Was: Trealla drastically beats Scryer [Jaffar's Algorithm]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-30 21:39 +0200
      Boris the Loris saw it all comming [Weak Prolog Community] (Was: Fast, but not correct implementation) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-09-30 21:53 +0200
  War between Scryer Prolog and Ciao Prolog [9:0 Triska vs Hermenegildo] (Was: Who will win the new Prolog race? SWI or Scryer?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 12:49 +0100
    Useless as the Thirty Years War / Generalized Facts (Was: War between Scryer Prolog and Ciao Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-19 13:11 +0100
  The Guerilla tactics of SWI are amazing: Shell India? (Was: Who will win the new Prolog race? SWI or Scryer?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-24 15:22 +0100
    The SWI7 exotism (dicts, etc..) has no value? (Was: The Guerilla tactics of SWI are amazing: Shell India?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-24 15:41 +0100
      My new TinyCLP is much faster [100% Prolog] (Was: The SWI7 exotism (dicts, etc..) has no value?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-24 21:27 +0100
  Railgun CLP versus Scryer Prolog [Euler #30 Variant] (Was: Who will win the new Prolog race?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2026-01-30 02:10 +0100

csiph-web