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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14141

Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

Currently I wish to add a C# sharp backend,
and also show some Unity integration.

But I am facing some health problems, some
nasty virus infection, which still persists

a little bit. Either I will be able to do
it in 2024, or you wont here anything

from me anymore...

LoL

Bye

P.S.: Some enemies might be happy if I bite
the dust, so it will be quite funny if

I can make it. But who knows?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Some folks from Scryer Prolog asked the following question:
> 
>  > Current plan is to compile WAM using Cranelift.
>  > However, GC must be done first. Maybe Prolog in
>  > the future could be used to analyze Prolog programs
>  > and produce optimizations (Prolog compiler in Prolog?)
> https://blog.adrianistan.eu/scryer-prolog-meetup-2023-notes/
> 
> There is no maybe, there is already a be, for both
> GC and Prolog compiler in Prolog. But you have to start
> with the idea, otherwise you probably cant make it.
> 
> Just take Dogelog Player, it has the following:
> 
> - Full Sweep Garbage Collector:
>    In the major metronome tick.
> 
> - Incremental Garbage Collector:
>    In the minor metronome tick.
> 
> - Read/Write 100% written in Prolog:
>    From scanner to parser and unparse its all Prolog.
> 
> - Compiler Front End 100% written in Prolog:
>    This is in albufeira.p, this is a little higher level
>    code generator that compiles Prolog clauses, including
>    the cut and if-then-else inlining, some constant term
>    optimizations and body indexing optimizations.
> 
> - Compiler Back Ends 100% written in Prolog
>    There are cross compiler back ends for JavaScript,
>    Python and Java. And there is runtime back end,
>    for the dynamic database and consult at runtime.
>    The corresponding runtimes have cute neck optimization
>    and last call optimization.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> How many years does Scryer Prolog allocate to
>> make a turn around? Lets say we have an explosion
>> of new tickets at the beginning, so the new tickets
>>
>> history might have this time functions, plus
>> some parameters that scale it:
>>
>> n(t) = 1 - exp(-t)
>>
>> And lets say tickets are closed at a constant
>> speed, like in this fuction:
>>
>> c(t) = t
>>
>> Again c(t) has some parameters not shown, to
>> scale it. But essently the project is
>>
>> completed when this one reaches zero:
>>
>> f(t) = n(t) - c(t)
>>
>> What can go wrong? Basically onec critical thing
>> is c(t). If you don't have solutions or resources,
>> c(t) might look very different, and a zero
>>
>> might never be reached.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>
>>> Just look at GitHub issues and sort by "recent update".
>>> I get for the last week the following figures:
>>>
>>> - New tickets: 7 new tickets
>>> - Closed tickets: 2 closed tickets
>>>
>>> To get a turn around you the the 2nd number bigger
>>> that the 1st number, and not the other way around.
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> I remember Robert Stärk's disappearing from
>>>> academic life at ETH Zurich all of a sudden.
>>>> Did Ulrich Neumerkel now also disappeared not
>>>>
>>>> because the Scryer Prolog disaster, but after
>>>> he figured out that failure slices are not hip
>>>> enought? What could be more hip, are the modalities
>>>>
>>>> of Robert Stärk's logic more hip now and even useful?
>>>>
>>>> Automated Theorem Proving for Prolog Verification
>>>> Fred Mesnard etc.. May 2024
>>>> https://lim.univ-reunion.fr/staff/fred/Publications/24-MesnardMP-slides.pdf 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Disclaimer: I am not deep into this theory,
>>>> it has some ingredients that were floating around
>>>> the 80's / 80's, not only in the millieau of ETH Zurich,
>>>>
>>>> but also in the vincinity of Gehard Jaeger, Bern.
>>>> There are many alternative formalizations that
>>>> can express termination etc.. But maybe LPTP is
>>>>
>>>> especially suited for Prolog?
>>>
>>
> 

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

Thread

Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:13 +0200
  Alan Kay's Dynabook fueled by Prolog? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:20 +0200
    ZebralLogic for evaluating LLMs (Was: Alan Kay's Dynabook fueled by Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 18:24 +0200
  Re: Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 19:21 +0200
    Biene Maya (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-01 22:26 +0200
      A Challenge for Fixpoint Lovers (Was: Biene Maya) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-02 08:03 +0200
  Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-09 14:42 +0200
    Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 12:25 +0200
      Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 12:59 +0200
        Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:03 +0200
          Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:14 +0200
            Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:19 +0200
              Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:32 +0200
                Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:41 +0200
                Re: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable? (Was: Holy Grail makes People Disappear) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-10 13:46 +0200
    The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:03 +0200
      Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:05 +0200
        Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 11:19 +0200
          Re: The naive reverse reality check (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-11 14:03 +0200
    How Scryer Prolog became the disgrace of Computer Science (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 15:48 +0200
      Re: How Scryer Prolog became the disgrace of Computer Science (Was: Is Scryer Prologs failure measurable?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 15:49 +0200
  Re: Holy Grail makes People Disappear [like Robert Staerk, now Ulrich Neumerkel?] Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2024-08-13 09:08 +0200

csiph-web