Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14674
| From | Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | comp.lang.prolog |
| Subject | Rename GitHub, to TurdPit, and make Amber Heard their CEO (Was: The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty) |
| Date | 2025-07-15 19:52 +0200 |
| Message-ID | <10564gh$2anes$1@solani.org> (permalink) |
| References | (3 earlier) <1055kpn$2ac5o$1@solani.org> <1055l2j$2ac8t$1@solani.org> <10560b0$2ak4u$1@solani.org> <10560cl$2ak4u$2@solani.org> <10561j0$2953g$2@solani.org> |
Hi, A 2020 study analyzing 2,927 GitHub projects found that many repositories quickly become unmaintained. This implies that the majority of projects don’t sustain long-term active development. Another study reported 46% of repositories inactive for at least six months, and only 13% active in the last month, showing low ongoing engagement across most repos. Because millions of repos exist on GitHub, and large portions are abandoned, inactive, or minimal “toy” projects, the fraction of repositories that are well-maintained, collaborative, and used in production contexts is low—roughly estimated to be around 1–2%. The caravan moves forth, leaving behind the occasional turd perfectly captures GitHub. Rename GitHub, to TurdPit, and make Amber Heard their CEO. Bye Mild Shock schrieb: > Hi, > > 1. Everybody’s a programmer now > The barrier to entry dropped dramatically — you can > become a "developer" with a few online tutorials > and a GitHub account. > > 2. Everybody’s an academic now > Academia expanded, but standards often fell. In > some places, it's publish or perish, so paper > mills and fake research flourish. > > 3. Signal Collapse ↔ Systemic Uncertainty > Credentials lose meaning, No reliable markers of > skill, Fragile systems built on shallow knowledge > > 4. Signal Collapse ↔ Systemic Uncertainty > Quantity overwhelms quality, Important truths get > buried, Bad signals drown good ones > > Etc.. > > Bye > > Mild Shock schrieb: >> Hi, >> >> Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign. >> I find this many issues here: >> >> https://github.com/rocq-prover/rocq/issues >> >> Mostlikely 90% of the issues can be move to >> the new discussion feature of GitHub. >> >> LoL >> >> Bye >> >> P.S.: Same holds for Scryer Prolog with 406 issues. >> >> Mild Shock schrieb: >>> Hi, >>> >>> Maybe AGI should take over proving. >>> Just take the humans out of the loop >>> of any programming, it leads to nowhere. >>> >>> Bye >>> >>> > Julio Di Egidio schrieb: >>> > > But we must thank MS for the nail in that coffin, too: they can't >>> > > be satisfied with just a Lean broken by design, they must own the >>> > > whole compartment: only poisoned meatballs for the public... >>> > >>> > -Julio >>> >>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>> Corr.: Small typo in the number >>>> expansion itself, should read: >>>> >>>> 10/81 = 0.(123456790) = 0.12345679(012345679) >>>> >>>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>>> Hi, >>>>> >>>>> Now somebody was so friendly to spear head >>>>> a new Don Quixote attempt in fighting the >>>>> windmills of compare/3. Interestingly my >>>>> >>>>> favorite counter example still goes through: >>>>> >>>>> ?- X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1, >>>>> compare_with_stack(C, X, Y). >>>>> X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, >>>>> Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1, >>>>> C = (<). >>>>> >>>>> ?- H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1, >>>>> compare_with_stack(C, Z, Y). >>>>> H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, >>>>> Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, >>>>> Y = Y-7-5-8-2-4-1, >>>>> C = (>). >>>>> >>>>> ?- H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, Z = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, X = >>>>> X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, >>>>> compare_with_stack(C, Z, X). >>>>> H = H-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1-0, >>>>> Z = X, X = X-0-9-7-6-5-4-3-2-1, >>>>> C = (=). >>>>> >>>>> I posted it here in March 2023: >>>>> >>>>> Careful with compare/3 and Brent algorithm >>>>> https://swi-prolog.discourse.group/t/careful-with-compare-3-and-brent-algorithm/6413 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Its based that rational terms are indeed in >>>>> some relation to rational numbers. The above >>>>> terms are related to: >>>>> >>>>> 10/81 = 0.(123456790) = 0.12345679(02345679) >>>>> >>>>> Bye >>>>> >>>>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>>>> Hi, >>>>>> >>>>>> That false/0 and not fail/0 is now all over the place, >>>>>> I don't mean in person but for example here: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?- X=f(f(X), X), Y=f(Y, f(Y)), X = Y. >>>>>> false. >>>>>> >>>>>> Is a little didactical nightmare. >>>>>> >>>>>> Syntactic unification has mathematical axioms (1978), >>>>>> to fully formalize unifcation you would need to >>>>>> formalize both (=)/2 and (≠)/2 (sic!), otherwise you >>>>>> rely on some negation as failure concept. >>>>>> >>>>>> Keith L. Clark, Negation as Failure >>>>>> https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4684-3384-5_11 >>>>>> >>>>>> You can realize a subset of a mixture of (=)/2 >>>>>> and (≠)/2 in the form of a vanilla unify Prolog >>>>>> predicate using some of the meta programming >>>>>> facilities of Prolog, like var/1 and having some >>>>>> >>>>>> negation as failure reading: >>>>>> >>>>>> /* Vanilla Unify */ >>>>>> unify(V, W) :- var(V), var(W), !, (V \== W -> V = W; true). >>>>>> unify(V, T) :- var(V), !, V = T. >>>>>> unify(S, W) :- var(W), !, W = S. >>>>>> unify(S, T) :- functor(S, F, N), functor(T, F, N), >>>>>> S =.. [F|L], T =.. [F|R], maplist(unify, L, R). >>>>>> >>>>>> I indeed get: >>>>>> >>>>>> ?- X=f(f(X), X), Y=f(Y, f(Y)), unify(X,Y). >>>>>> false. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the vanilla unify/2 already fails then unify >>>>>> with and without subject to occurs check, will also >>>>>> fail, and unify with and without ability to >>>>>> handle rational terms, will also fail: >>>>>> >>>>>> Bye >>>>>> >>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Interestingly, DCG is also affect. Here a >>>>>>> DCG take of an append app/3, it has the 2nd >>>>>>> and 3rd argument swapped: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?- [user]. >>>>>>> app([]) --> []. >>>>>>> app([X|Y]) --> [X], app(Y). >>>>>>> ^D >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Looks like an append, taking the argument swap >>>>>>> into account, the A=B is redundant, could >>>>>>> be optimized away: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */ >>>>>>> ?- listing(app/3). >>>>>>> app([], A, B) :- >>>>>>> A=B. >>>>>>> app([A|B], [A|C], D) :- >>>>>>> app(B, C, D). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And works like an append, again taking the >>>>>>> argument swap into account: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> ?- app([1],X,[2,3]). >>>>>>> X = [1, 2, 3]. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now the multi-argument indexing test, still >>>>>>> taking the argument swap into account; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.1beta #13 */ >>>>>>> [eclipse 3]: app(X, [1], Y). >>>>>>> >>>>>>> X = [] >>>>>>> Y = [1] >>>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ; >>>>>>> >>>>>>> X = [1] >>>>>>> Y = [] >>>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Versus: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */ >>>>>>> ?- app(X, [1], Y). >>>>>>> X = [], >>>>>>> Y = [1] ; >>>>>>> X = [1], >>>>>>> Y = [] ; >>>>>>> false. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Mild Shock schrieb: >>>>>>>> I am currently doing a re-evaluation of an old >>>>>>>> Prolog system, checking what features I could adopt. >>>>>>>> This is unlike the current trend where people have >>>>>>>> turned their focus on GUIs, like XPCE, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> or a are stuck in an endless loop of parser >>>>>>>> problems, like in Trealla. But I would nevertheless >>>>>>>> share my finding. Take this simple example of >>>>>>>> a list append: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> app([], X, X). >>>>>>>> app([X|Y], Z, [X|T]) :- app(Y, Z, T). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ECLiPSe Prolog gives me, only one redo question >>>>>>>> in the top-level: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /* ECLiPSe Prolog 7.1beta #13 */ >>>>>>>> [eclipse 2]: app(X,Y,[1]). >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> X = [] >>>>>>>> Y = [1] >>>>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 1, maybe more) ? ; >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> X = [1] >>>>>>>> Y = [] >>>>>>>> Yes (0.00s cpu, solution 2) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In SWI-Prolog I find, two redo questions >>>>>>>> in the top.level: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> /* SWI-Prolog 9.3.25 */ >>>>>>>> ?- app(X,Y,[1]). >>>>>>>> X = [], >>>>>>>> Y = [1] ; >>>>>>>> X = [1], >>>>>>>> Y = [] ; >>>>>>>> false. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I know SWI-Prolog handles lists differently >>>>>>>> than other Prolog terms during indexing. Could >>>>>>>> this be the reason? Or maybe that the call is >>>>>>>> not “hot” enough, so it doesn’t get JIT-ed. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> ECLiPSe Prolog does it on the very first call, >>>>>>>> and I assume its due to a kind of index on >>>>>>>> the 3rd argument. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >> >
Back to comp.lang.prolog | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 12:45 +0200
Observed while watching FAIL/REDO ports (Was: The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 12:46 +0200
Shocking Revelation: No eGovernment can trust Prolog! (Was: Observed while watching FAIL/REDO ports) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 13:26 +0200
Easier certification with 100% Prolog Prolog? (Was: Shocking Revelation: No eGovernment can trust Prolog!) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:05 +0200
Doing a Prolog system without any iterator API (Was: Easier certification with 100% Prolog Prolog?) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:14 +0200
The headache with JIT indexing: Native -> Prolog (Was: Doing a Prolog system without any iterator API) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 14:40 +0200
Just lets burn another candle for Barty Boy (Was: The headache with JIT indexing: Native -> Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:13 +0200
Physics PhDs might never have heard of Quantifier Eliminations (Re: Just lets burn another candle for Barty Boy) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:33 +0200
How long willl I piss on Bart Demoen (Was: Physics PhDs might never have heard of Quantifier Eliminations) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 18:39 +0200
But I shouldn't waste too much time (Was: How long willl I piss on Bart Demoen) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-10 19:13 +0200
DCG is easily affected (Was: The Ghosts in my Cabinet: Indexing) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-11 09:38 +0200
The headache an eGovernment might get from Prolog (Was: DCG is easily affected) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:20 +0200
Wait till they find out about compare/3 (Was: The headache an eGovernment might get from Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:24 +0200
Corr. (Was: Wait till they find out about compare/3) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 15:28 +0200
eGovernements will need AGI to survive (Was: Corr. (Was: Wait till they find out about compare/3)) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 18:41 +0200
Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign (Re: eGovernements will need AGI to survive) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 18:41 +0200
The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty (Re: Having 2544 issues is probably a bad sign) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 19:02 +0200
Rename GitHub, to TurdPit, and make Amber Heard their CEO (Was: The Signal Collapse gives us System Uncertainty) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-15 19:52 +0200
Humans are just overwhelmed by computers (Was: eGovernements will need AGI to survive) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-16 18:59 +0200
Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog (Was: Humans are just overwhelmed by computers) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-16 20:08 +0200
So we are essentially all using Trojan Horses 🐎 daily? (Re: Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-17 10:57 +0200
Strudel Rust gives Scryer Frust 💩: Try C+20 Pipes (Was: Fishy 🐟 in Scryer Prolog and SWI-Prolog( Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-11-25 22:55 +0100
SWI-Prolog as a Test Bed for Copilots (Was: Humans are just overwhelmed by computers) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-20 14:36 +0200
Mathematics currently hates Computer Science because of AI (Re: SWI-Prolog as a Test Bed for Copilots) Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm> - 2025-07-20 15:13 +0200
csiph-web