Path: ...!news.misty.com!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!reader5.news.weretis.net!news.solani.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Mild Shock <janburse@fastmail.fm>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.prolog
Subject: =?UTF-8?Q?Re:_Can_we_trust_the_Scryer_Prolog_Gurus=3f_=28Was:_A_har?=
 =?UTF-8?Q?sh_wind_is_blowing_into_the_face_of_Prolog_now=e2=80=a6_=29?=
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2024 00:30:26 +0200
Message-ID: <v7mmi0$725n$1@solani.org>
References: <v32hjd$s3qh$1@solani.org> <v7mmbj$71vr$1@solani.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2024 22:30:24 -0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: solani.org;
	logging-data="231607"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@news.solani.org"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Firefox/91.0 SeaMonkey/2.53.18.2
Cancel-Lock: sha1:sWMbyemGoZ8R+ptiklNUmMD8cNc=
In-Reply-To: <v7mmbj$71vr$1@solani.org>
X-User-ID: eJwNycEBACEIA8GWRBKQctQj/ZdwfvYxSw+LmwgGKGrRaJjOxCukfZ45/Bu2skZb09aR63xzQr0z3hm60VWqHx+4FLE=
Bytes: 3775
Lines: 69

That the DEC 10 Prolog 1975 is close to Prolog 0,
can be verified by reading the Prolog 0 manual:

MANUEL DE REFE RE NeE ET D'UTILISATION - PROLOG
ROUSSEL Ph. (1975)
http://alain.colmerauer.free.fr/alcol/ArchivesPublications/ManuelProlog/Pr.pdf

So at that same year there was already an
English rip-off. If I read the french, I also
don't find some atom/1, integer/1 equivalent

that would throw an instantiation error. Problem
is again, what would have been an exception in Prolog 0?

Mild Shock schrieb:
> For example one Guru claimed?
> 
>  > Prolog were invented today, I think there would
>  > be at least two significant differences:
>  >
>  > First, the type-testing predicates like atom/1,
>  > integer/1 and compound/1 would (and should) throw
>  > instantiation errors if their arguments are not
>  > sufficiently instantiated.
>  >
>  > This is also what the original versions of Prolog
>  > did. However, DEC 10 Prolog chose to replace instantiation
>  > errors by silent failures, and this has been
>  > perpetuated in the Edinburgh tradition for type tests
>  > including the ISO standard.
> https://www.quora.com/If-prolog-were-being-invented-today-with-no-concern-for-backward-compatibility-or-the-existing-standardization-how-would-it-differ-from-standard-prolog 
> 
> 
> I cannot verify any of the above nonsense.
> 
> First of all the term "DEC-10 Prolog" is ambigious:
> 
> DEC 10 Prolog 1975
> https://www.softwarepreservation.org/projects/prolog/prolog/edinburgh/doc/Warren-Epilog_400_400-1975.pdf 
> 
> 
> DEC 10 Prolog 1982
> https://userweb.fct.unl.pt/~lmp/publications/online-papers/DECsystem-10%20PROLOG%20USER%27S%20MANUAL.pdf 
> 
> 
> The DEC 10 Prolog 1975 looks very close to Prolog 0
> with its french predicate names. There is not a simgle
> atom/1, integer/1 equivalent that would throw an
> 
> instantiation error. Actually Prolog 0 didn't even
> have some sort of exceptions, right?
> 
> Mild Shock schrieb:
>> Especially since good old FORTRAN has
>> made a new appearance:
>>
>> TIOBE Index for May 2024
>> I have received a lot of questions why Fortran entered the top 10
>> again after more than 20 years. The TIOBE index just publishes
>> what has been measured.
>> https://www.tiobe.com/tiobe-index/
>>
>> Why Fortran is back in TIOBE’s top 10
>> First, Fortran is especially good at numerical analysis and
>> computational mathematics. Numerical and mathematical
>> computing is growing because interest in artificial intelligence
>> is growing, Jansen told TechRepublic in an email.
>> https://www.techrepublic.com/article/tiobe-index-may-2024/
>