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

Groups > comp.lang.prolog > #14856

Help! We need Boris the Loris, its all Fuzzy (Was: The PoC (Proof of Concept) aspect of a PIP)

Show all headers | View raw

Hi,

I big advantage of PoC derived only PIPs is a
firm scope. Put PoC first, derive PIPs bottom up,
and not the other way around use PIPs to spark

PoCs top down. A PoC would surely have a strong
boundary scope. On the other hand these PIPs now
have very weak fuzzy scopes.

They should put Boris the Loris into the
steering board, he was very good when
it came to community, and fuzzy versus

non-fuzzy. PoC based PIPs would probably
have clean descriptions, and not this horror
of Fuzzyness, where PIPs don't know their own Scope!!!

APPENDIX: META-DISCUSSION FOR THIS PIP
What should be covered in this PIP?
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0102-dicts.html

TBD: relate with current_struct/1 ECLiPSe?
TBD: Discuss it
TBD: useful for portray, translation to dynamic dicts (Jan)
https://prolog-lang.org/ImplementersForum/0104-argnames.html

Such discussion would be find in the GitHub
of a PoC, in case the PoC was developed
with GitHub. Nowadays the GitHub could even

contain longwinding discussions, since GitHub
offers discussions, its even not necessary
to put discussions into issue tickets.

Bye

Mild Shock schrieb:
> 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