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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14568 > unrolled thread

Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.prolog

Contents

  Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-20 21:13 +0200
    IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-20 21:18 +0200
      Re: IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-20 21:41 +0200
        timers and tasks testing framework Node.js v20.0.0] (Was: IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-23 13:05 +0200
          The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0] (Was: timers and tasks testing framework [Node.js v20.0.0]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-23 13:10 +0200
            OpenAPI Specification (OAS) goes full Monty [AsyncAPI] (Was: The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 08:16 +0200
            OpenAPI Specification (OAS) goes full Monty [AsyncAPI] (Was: The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0]) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 08:17 +0200
    constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 01:06 +0200
      Teachers have better quality than Nerds (Was: constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 01:12 +0200
        ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers (Was: Teachers have better quality than Nerds) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 01:26 +0200
          Where APIs Meet AI: Building Tomorrow's Intelligent Ecosystems (Was: ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-24 08:24 +0200
    A library(pio) for the Web 2.0 (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-25 15:17 +0200
      Corr. (Was: A library(pio) for the Web 2.0) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-06-25 15:19 +0200

#14568 — Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon

Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

 > don’t think it could really do
 > the “ghost text” effect.

It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
the “ghost text” is part of the first response.

But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:

 > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested

Well you don’t use it for your primary
typing completion which is preferably fast.
The first response might give context information,
for the second request which provides a
different type of completion.

But the first response is not responsible
for any timing towards the second request.
That anyway happens in the client. And it
doesn’t hurt if the first response is
from a stupid channel.

Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#14569 — IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)

Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon. Unlike
web 1.0 which is static content. Web 2.0 is
all about dynamic content, including building
content incrementally.

IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source,
their ghost texts are code snippets. So its
more like recalling typing marcros, giving
them a good guess. Not completing

partial identifiers:

Why Did JetBrains Create Mellum?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TqkvVXKxFA

LLM optimized for code-related tasks.
https://huggingface.co/JetBrains/Mellum-4b-base

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 
>  > don’t think it could really do
>  > the “ghost text” effect.
> 
> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
> 
> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
> 
>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
> 
> Well you don’t use it for your primary
> typing completion which is preferably fast.
> The first response might give context information,
> for the second request which provides a
> different type of completion.
> 
> But the first response is not responsible
> for any timing towards the second request.
> That anyway happens in the client. And it
> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
> from a stupid channel.
> 
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14570 — Re: IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)

Disclaimer: Didn’t double check whether
there were already some LLM posts on SWI-Prolog
discourse, that would approach a solution.

The LSP and the Relay could access the same
end-user code repository. Not all data would
need a round trip through the client to go

from first request to second request.

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon. Unlike
> web 1.0 which is static content. Web 2.0 is
> all about dynamic content, including building
> content incrementally.
> 
> IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source,
> their ghost texts are code snippets. So its
> more like recalling typing marcros, giving
> them a good guess. Not completing
> 
> partial identifiers:
> 
> Why Did JetBrains Create Mellum?
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TqkvVXKxFA
> 
> LLM optimized for code-related tasks.
> https://huggingface.co/JetBrains/Mellum-4b-base
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>
>>  > don’t think it could really do
>>  > the “ghost text” effect.
>>
>> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
>> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
>> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
>> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>>
>> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>>
>>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>>
>> Well you don’t use it for your primary
>> typing completion which is preferably fast.
>> The first response might give context information,
>> for the second request which provides a
>> different type of completion.
>>
>> But the first response is not responsible
>> for any timing towards the second request.
>> That anyway happens in the client. And it
>> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
>> from a stupid channel.
>>
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14571 — timers and tasks testing framework Node.js v20.0.0] (Was: IntelliJ just created Mellum, its open source)

A flesh an bood cooperative multitasking Prolog system
is sometimes tricky to do. We were agonizing over the
last days how we could test our timers and tasks.

Our existing framework doesn't work, since it neither
waits for a timer callback to be fired and to complete,
nor for a task to complete. But its seems its just an
instance of a Promise again.

Turn the test case itself into a Promise, and wait for
it. In Prolo terms, the test case is a success when the
.then() port gets reached with SUCCESS, or its a failure
if the .then() port gets reached with FAILURE or if the

the .catch() port gets reached. Interesting framework
that does just that:, whereby the use assert, to turn
FAILURE into an exception:

Node.js v20.0.0 - The test runner is now stable.
https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#describe-and-it-aliases

BTW: Quite inventive vocabulary...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14572 — The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0] (Was: timers and tasks testing framework [Node.js v20.0.0])

Again JavaScript shines since the keyword "async"
makes the difference. We have recently experienced
its benefit, since we could remove all new Promise()
calls in our code where we are juggling with tasks.

new Promise() is only needed for callbacks that
then call resolve() or reject(), but task can
just use await and try catch. Now without
the keyword its a traditional test case:

test('synchronous failing test', (t) => {
   // This test fails because it throws an exception.
   assert.strictEqual(1, 2);
});

With the keyword its a test case that
can test timers and tasks:

test('asynchronous passing test', async (t) => {
   // This test passes because the Promise returned by the async
   // function is settled and not rejected.
   assert.strictEqual(1, 1);
});

Mild Shock schrieb:
> A flesh an bood cooperative multitasking Prolog system
> is sometimes tricky to do. We were agonizing over the
> last days how we could test our timers and tasks.
> 
> Our existing framework doesn't work, since it neither
> waits for a timer callback to be fired and to complete,
> nor for a task to complete. But its seems its just an
> instance of a Promise again.
> 
> Turn the test case itself into a Promise, and wait for
> it. In Prolo terms, the test case is a success when the
> .then() port gets reached with SUCCESS, or its a failure
> if the .then() port gets reached with FAILURE or if the
> 
> the .catch() port gets reached. Interesting framework
> that does just that:, whereby the use assert, to turn
> FAILURE into an exception:
> 
> Node.js v20.0.0 - The test runner is now stable.
> https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#describe-and-it-aliases
> 
> BTW: Quite inventive vocabulary...
> 
> 
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14590 — OpenAPI Specification (OAS) goes full Monty [AsyncAPI] (Was: The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0])

Hi,

You see more and more frameworks try to get
flesh and blood async. I tell you, its a neglected
subject so far. There is a for example a whole

world of async streams already integrated
into the browser and node.js !

Für asynchrone API-Kommunikation mit unterschiedlichen 
Transportprotokollen ist AsyncAPI als Beschreibungsstandard
entstanden, der sich am OpenAPI-Konzept anlehnt
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAPI

Woa! This looks swagger:

Bringing Asynchronous APIs to the Forefront at APIDays Singapore
event, themed "Where APIs Meet AI: Building Tomorrow's Intelligent 
Ecosystems", providing an excellent platform to introduce AsyncAPI to 
the vibrant Asia-Pacific community.​
https://www.asyncapi.com/blog/2025-singapore-conf-summary

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Again JavaScript shines since the keyword "async"
> makes the difference. We have recently experienced
> its benefit, since we could remove all new Promise()
> calls in our code where we are juggling with tasks.
> 
> new Promise() is only needed for callbacks that
> then call resolve() or reject(), but task can
> just use await and try catch. Now without
> the keyword its a traditional test case:
> 
> test('synchronous failing test', (t) => {
>    // This test fails because it throws an exception.
>    assert.strictEqual(1, 2);
> });
> 
> With the keyword its a test case that
> can test timers and tasks:
> 
> test('asynchronous passing test', async (t) => {
>    // This test passes because the Promise returned by the async
>    // function is settled and not rejected.
>    assert.strictEqual(1, 1);
> });
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> A flesh an bood cooperative multitasking Prolog system
>> is sometimes tricky to do. We were agonizing over the
>> last days how we could test our timers and tasks.
>>
>> Our existing framework doesn't work, since it neither
>> waits for a timer callback to be fired and to complete,
>> nor for a task to complete. But its seems its just an
>> instance of a Promise again.
>>
>> Turn the test case itself into a Promise, and wait for
>> it. In Prolo terms, the test case is a success when the
>> .then() port gets reached with SUCCESS, or its a failure
>> if the .then() port gets reached with FAILURE or if the
>>
>> the .catch() port gets reached. Interesting framework
>> that does just that:, whereby the use assert, to turn
>> FAILURE into an exception:
>>
>> Node.js v20.0.0 - The test runner is now stable.
>> https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#describe-and-it-aliases
>>
>> BTW: Quite inventive vocabulary...
>>
>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14591 — OpenAPI Specification (OAS) goes full Monty [AsyncAPI] (Was: The magical "async" keyword again [Node.js v20.0.0])

Hi,

You see more and more frameworks try to get
flesh and blood async. I tell you, its a neglected
subject so far. There is a for example a whole

world of async streams already integrated
into the browser and node.js !

Für asynchrone API-Kommunikation mit unterschiedlichen
Transportprotokollen ist AsyncAPI als Beschreibungsstandard
entstanden, der sich am OpenAPI-Konzept anlehnt
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenAPI

Woa! This looks swagger:

Bringing Asynchronous APIs to the Forefront at APIDays Singapore
event, themed "Where APIs Meet AI: Building Tomorrow's Intelligent 
Ecosystems", providing an excellent platform to introduce AsyncAPI to 
the vibrant Asia-Pacific community.​
https://www.asyncapi.com/blog/2025-singapore-conf-summary

Bye


Mild Shock schrieb:
> Again JavaScript shines since the keyword "async"
> makes the difference. We have recently experienced
> its benefit, since we could remove all new Promise()
> calls in our code where we are juggling with tasks.
> 
> new Promise() is only needed for callbacks that
> then call resolve() or reject(), but task can
> just use await and try catch. Now without
> the keyword its a traditional test case:
> 
> test('synchronous failing test', (t) => {
>    // This test fails because it throws an exception.
>    assert.strictEqual(1, 2);
> });
> 
> With the keyword its a test case that
> can test timers and tasks:
> 
> test('asynchronous passing test', async (t) => {
>    // This test passes because the Promise returned by the async
>    // function is settled and not rejected.
>    assert.strictEqual(1, 1);
> });
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> A flesh an bood cooperative multitasking Prolog system
>> is sometimes tricky to do. We were agonizing over the
>> last days how we could test our timers and tasks.
>>
>> Our existing framework doesn't work, since it neither
>> waits for a timer callback to be fired and to complete,
>> nor for a task to complete. But its seems its just an
>> instance of a Promise again.
>>
>> Turn the test case itself into a Promise, and wait for
>> it. In Prolo terms, the test case is a success when the
>> .then() port gets reached with SUCCESS, or its a failure
>> if the .then() port gets reached with FAILURE or if the
>>
>> the .catch() port gets reached. Interesting framework
>> that does just that:, whereby the use assert, to turn
>> FAILURE into an exception:
>>
>> Node.js v20.0.0 - The test runner is now stable.
>> https://nodejs.org/api/test.html#describe-and-it-aliases
>>
>> BTW: Quite inventive vocabulary...
>>
>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14587 — constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)

Hi,

Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
has become a cest pool of stupid teachers

asking stupid questions. Development and
innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
All Prolog systems are based on completely

silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
constant caching test case in linear time:

data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).

test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.

Here some results:

/* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */

?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
% Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
% Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips

/* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */

?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
    % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
    % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences

Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 
>  > don’t think it could really do
>  > the “ghost text” effect.
> 
> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
> 
> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
> 
>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
> 
> Well you don’t use it for your primary
> typing completion which is preferably fast.
> The first response might give context information,
> for the second request which provides a
> different type of completion.
> 
> But the first response is not responsible
> for any timing towards the second request.
> That anyway happens in the client. And it
> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
> from a stupid channel.
> 
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14588 — Teachers have better quality than Nerds (Was: constant caching test case / Prolog orthodoxification)

Hi,

Of course Teachers have better quality
than Nerds when they formulate questions.
Better reseacherd. But the goal of a teacher

is always orthodoxification. So ensentially
SWI-Prolog discourse is abused as a wiki,
with dozen of questions and answer harnessing

hundred of links. The food that teachers need.

Bye

P.S.: Its obvious what is killed in the process:
- Get rid of silly WAM and ZIP!
- Going towards web 2.0 with Prolog
- The AU Boom and Prolog
- What else...?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
> student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
> has become a cest pool of stupid teachers
> 
> asking stupid questions. Development and
> innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
> All Prolog systems are based on completely
> 
> silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
> constant caching test case in linear time:
> 
> data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
> data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
> data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
> 
> test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.
> 
> Here some results:
> 
> /* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */
> 
> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
> % Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
> % Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
> % Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips
> 
> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */
> 
> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
>     % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
>     % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
>     % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences
> 
> Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
> Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
> Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>
>>  > don’t think it could really do
>>  > the “ghost text” effect.
>>
>> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
>> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
>> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
>> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>>
>> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>>
>>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>>
>> Well you don’t use it for your primary
>> typing completion which is preferably fast.
>> The first response might give context information,
>> for the second request which provides a
>> different type of completion.
>>
>> But the first response is not responsible
>> for any timing towards the second request.
>> That anyway happens in the client. And it
>> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
>> from a stupid channel.
>>
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14589 — ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers (Was: Teachers have better quality than Nerds)

Hi,

ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers.
GUPU from Ulrich Neumerkel is also a Teaching project.
Notebooks can be also viewed as a Teaching project.

Still there were once rumors that Prolog was used
in Industry. But this was long long ago, and these
roots are possibly totally gone.

I don't believe anybody is using CLP or s(CASP).
Or CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog. Also the USA
compiler builders are total cluless about logic,

and USA is dominant when it comes to compiler
builder. Take the dissertation of

Combining Analyses, Combining Optimizations
Clifford Noel Click, Jr. -  February, 1995

He does't know a bit how conditional constant
propagation relates to logic.

Bye

P.S.: Compiler builders never had a formal education
in mathematical logic. Not enough time. They
were always busy in guzzling in machine code

operations, building highly sophisticated tables
that describe the machine code operations and
building simlarly highly sophisticated backends,

that are sniffing these tables. You don't find
such People in Prolog anymore. Somebody that
knows aassembly, just like Linus Torwald started...

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Of course Teachers have better quality
> than Nerds when they formulate questions.
> Better reseacherd. But the goal of a teacher
> 
> is always orthodoxification. So ensentially
> SWI-Prolog discourse is abused as a wiki,
> with dozen of questions and answer harnessing
> 
> hundred of links. The food that teachers need.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Its obvious what is killed in the process:
> - Get rid of silly WAM and ZIP!
> - Going towards web 2.0 with Prolog
> - The AU Boom and Prolog
> - What else...?
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
>> student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
>> has become a cest pool of stupid teachers
>>
>> asking stupid questions. Development and
>> innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
>> All Prolog systems are based on completely
>>
>> silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
>> constant caching test case in linear time:
>>
>> data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>> data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>> data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>>
>> test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.
>>
>> Here some results:
>>
>> /* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */
>>
>> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
>> % Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
>> % Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
>> % Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips
>>
>> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */
>>
>> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
>>     % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>     % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>     % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>
>> Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
>> Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
>> Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>>
>>>  > don’t think it could really do
>>>  > the “ghost text” effect.
>>>
>>> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
>>> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
>>> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
>>> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>>>
>>> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>>>
>>>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>>>
>>> Well you don’t use it for your primary
>>> typing completion which is preferably fast.
>>> The first response might give context information,
>>> for the second request which provides a
>>> different type of completion.
>>>
>>> But the first response is not responsible
>>> for any timing towards the second request.
>>> That anyway happens in the client. And it
>>> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
>>> from a stupid channel.
>>>
>>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14592 — Where APIs Meet AI: Building Tomorrow's Intelligent Ecosystems (Was: ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers)

Hi,

You could still make it to London:

API enthusiasts in London! Join the
AsyncAPI Conference for deep dives into
event-driven architecture and open-source
collaboration.
https://conference.asyncapi.com/venue/London

You might have:

- Real-world examples of AsyncAPI in action
- Live demos using AsyncAPI Studio and the CLI
- The tooling and ecosystem that surrounds the spec

But more than the slides and demos, it was the
questions that told the story:

- "Tell me more about AsyncAPI"
- “How do I introduce AsyncAPI into our hybrid systems?”
- “Can I use this with Kafka and MQTT?”
- “How do we contribute to the spec or tooling?”
- "How do other AsyncAPI adopters use AsyncAPI?"

LoL

Bye

P.S.: Mostlikely an attempt to revive React,
looks like a big pile of shit to me:

https://github.com/asyncapi/spec/blob/master/spec/asyncapi.md

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> ISO is loosing it because it gives in to Teachers.
> GUPU from Ulrich Neumerkel is also a Teaching project.
> Notebooks can be also viewed as a Teaching project.
> 
> Still there were once rumors that Prolog was used
> in Industry. But this was long long ago, and these
> roots are possibly totally gone.
> 
> I don't believe anybody is using CLP or s(CASP).
> Or CLP(Z) from Scryer Prolog. Also the USA
> compiler builders are total cluless about logic,
> 
> and USA is dominant when it comes to compiler
> builder. Take the dissertation of
> 
> Combining Analyses, Combining Optimizations
> Clifford Noel Click, Jr. -  February, 1995
> 
> He does't know a bit how conditional constant
> propagation relates to logic.
> 
> Bye
> 
> P.S.: Compiler builders never had a formal education
> in mathematical logic. Not enough time. They
> were always busy in guzzling in machine code
> 
> operations, building highly sophisticated tables
> that describe the machine code operations and
> building simlarly highly sophisticated backends,
> 
> that are sniffing these tables. You don't find
> such People in Prolog anymore. Somebody that
> knows aassembly, just like Linus Torwald started...
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Of course Teachers have better quality
>> than Nerds when they formulate questions.
>> Better reseacherd. But the goal of a teacher
>>
>> is always orthodoxification. So ensentially
>> SWI-Prolog discourse is abused as a wiki,
>> with dozen of questions and answer harnessing
>>
>> hundred of links. The food that teachers need.
>>
>> Bye
>>
>> P.S.: Its obvious what is killed in the process:
>> - Get rid of silly WAM and ZIP!
>> - Going towards web 2.0 with Prolog
>> - The AU Boom and Prolog
>> - What else...?
>>
>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> Now SWI-Prolog has amassed 1/4 Million of
>>> student notebooks, the SWI-Prolog discourse
>>> has become a cest pool of stupid teachers
>>>
>>> asking stupid questions. Development and
>>> innovation in Prolog has totally stalled.
>>> All Prolog systems are based on completely
>>>
>>> silly WAM or ZIP, and cannot run this trivial
>>> constant caching test case in linear time:
>>>
>>> data(1,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>>> data(2,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>>> data(3,[0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]).
>>>
>>> test(N) :- between(1,1000000,_), data(N, _), fail; true.
>>>
>>> Here some results:
>>>
>>> /* Trealla Prolog 2.74.10 */
>>>
>>> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
>>> % Time elapsed 0.236s, 3000004 Inferences, 12.692 MLips
>>> % Time elapsed 0.318s, 3000004 Inferences, 9.429 MLips
>>> % Time elapsed 0.371s, 3000004 Inferences, 8.095 MLips
>>>
>>> /* Scryer Prolog 0.9.4-411 */
>>>
>>> ?- between(1,3,N), time(test(N)), fail; true.
>>>     % CPU time: 0.793s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>>     % CPU time: 1.150s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>>     % CPU time: 1.481s, 7_000_100 inferences
>>>
>>> Guess what formerly Jekejeke Prolog and Dogelog
>>> Player show? They are not based on WAM or ZIP.
>>> Its rather DAM, Dogelog Abtract Machine.
>>>
>>> Bye
>>>
>>> Mild Shock schrieb:
>>>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>>>
>>>>  > don’t think it could really do
>>>>  > the “ghost text” effect.
>>>>
>>>> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
>>>> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
>>>> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
>>>> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>>>>
>>>> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>>>>
>>>>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>>>>
>>>> Well you don’t use it for your primary
>>>> typing completion which is preferably fast.
>>>> The first response might give context information,
>>>> for the second request which provides a
>>>> different type of completion.
>>>>
>>>> But the first response is not responsible
>>>> for any timing towards the second request.
>>>> That anyway happens in the client. And it
>>>> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
>>>> from a stupid channel.
>>>>
>>>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>>
>>
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14595 — A library(pio) for the Web 2.0 (Was: Prolog missed the Web 2.0 Bandwagon)

Hi,

Why only phrase_from_file/2 and not also
phrase_from_url/2. Its not that difficult to
do, you can do it with change_arg/2 and

nothing else! Lets see what we have so far:

Trealla Prolog:
    Base on memory mapping chars. So basically
    this could be judged as a further argument
    in favor of chars versus codes. But its
    not Web 2.0, works only for files.

https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/blob/main/library/pio.pl

SWI-Prolog:
    Based on turning a stream into a lazy list.
    Requires attributed variables and repositionable
    streams. The stream is opened with open/3 but
    maybe could be opened with http_open/3 as well?

https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/blob/master/library/pio.pl

To be continued...

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 
>  > don’t think it could really do
>  > the “ghost text” effect.
> 
> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
> 
> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
> 
>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
> 
> Well you don’t use it for your primary
> typing completion which is preferably fast.
> The first response might give context information,
> for the second request which provides a
> different type of completion.
> 
> But the first response is not responsible
> for any timing towards the second request.
> That anyway happens in the client. And it
> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
> from a stupid channel.
> 
> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#14596 — Corr. (Was: A library(pio) for the Web 2.0)

Corr.: Typo change_arg/2 ~~> change_arg/3

you can do it with change_arg/3 and nothing else!

Mild Shock schrieb:
> Hi,
> 
> Why only phrase_from_file/2 and not also
> phrase_from_url/2. Its not that difficult to
> do, you can do it with change_arg/2 and
> 
> nothing else! Lets see what we have so far:
> 
> Trealla Prolog:
>     Base on memory mapping chars. So basically
>     this could be judged as a further argument
>     in favor of chars versus codes. But its
>     not Web 2.0, works only for files.
> 
> https://github.com/trealla-prolog/trealla/blob/main/library/pio.pl
> 
> SWI-Prolog:
>     Based on turning a stream into a lazy list.
>     Requires attributed variables and repositionable
>     streams. The stream is opened with open/3 but
>     maybe could be opened with http_open/3 as well?
> 
> https://github.com/SWI-Prolog/swipl-devel/blob/master/library/pio.pl
> 
> To be continued...
> 
> Bye
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
>>
>>  > don’t think it could really do
>>  > the “ghost text” effect.
>>
>> It wouldn’t do the ghost text, only assist
>> it. There was a misunderstanding how “ghost
>> texts” work. Maybe you were thinking, that
>> the “ghost text” is part of the first response.
>>
>> But usually the “ghost text” is a second response:
>>
>>  > waiting for completion candidates to be suggested
>>
>> Well you don’t use it for your primary
>> typing completion which is preferably fast.
>> The first response might give context information,
>> for the second request which provides a
>> different type of completion.
>>
>> But the first response is not responsible
>> for any timing towards the second request.
>> That anyway happens in the client. And it
>> doesn’t hurt if the first response is
>> from a stupid channel.
>>
>> Web 2.0 is all about incremental content!
> 

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.prolog

csiph-web